# 2025-6-13 LIVE DEBATE \[God is Imaginary\]

An episode of [Deconstruction Zone](https://invisiblenetwork.ai/podcast/1837730286), 17 Sep 2025, 4 h 05 min.

Audio: https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/api.spreaker.com/download/episode/67798403/2025_6_13_live_debate_god_is_imaginary.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

[0:01] Speaker 1: I think.
[0:05] Speaker 2: I think we're live. Now everything should be good to go.
[0:10] Speaker 2: Welcome in, friends, I think we're live. We turn my
[0:14] Speaker 2: phone down real quick before I forget all right, I
[0:20] Speaker 2: think all the streams are live. Welcome in, friends, It's
[0:25] Speaker 2: good to see everybody. Give you one second. Let me
[0:29] Speaker 2: organize my screens. Make sure the screens are all set
[0:32] Speaker 2: up in a rock and roll Thank you for being here.
[0:36] Speaker 2: We got a midday stream going on because it's summertime.
[0:40] Speaker 2: You know, summer is the summer. Streams are a little
[0:43] Speaker 2: bit unplanned, unscheduled, but we should be having here in
[0:48] Speaker 2: the next couple of weeks a lot more streams popping
[0:51] Speaker 2: off during the daytime. I've been scheduled some time off
[0:55] Speaker 2: of work so I can do some streaming. We're gonna
[1:00] Speaker 2: keep cooking through the summer. We're gonna make things happen.
[1:03] Speaker 2: Good to see you, Godless J Steele, Welcome in. Good
[1:06] Speaker 2: to see your friends. We're getting everything rad to rock
[1:10] Speaker 2: and roll. Let me double chip make sure the guest
[1:12] Speaker 2: box is open. Sorry about that.
[1:17] Speaker 1: There we go.
[1:18] Speaker 2: The TikTok guest box is open. Let me open up
[1:23] Speaker 2: the guest box for YouTube one second. One second. We'll
[1:28] Speaker 2: get the YouTube guest box open. Okay, YouTube guest box
[1:34] Speaker 2: should be open. TikTok guest box should be open, should
[1:40] Speaker 2: be ready to rock and roll. And with that we'll
[1:43] Speaker 2: grab our first super chatter two and then we'll get
[1:46] Speaker 2: our first guests pulled right in. Welcome to the Crack
[1:51] Speaker 2: and Crew Elite. Hold on here one second. Let me
[1:56] Speaker 2: make sure my chat highlights are working. My chat highlights
[2:01] Speaker 2: are not working when we don't chuck on it. Well,
[2:06] Speaker 2: that one's working. We got a duplicate I'm sorry about that.
[2:09] Speaker 3: One second.
[2:11] Speaker 2: One second, we got duplicate chat.
[2:14] Speaker 3: Uh, we got competing chat boxes.
[2:16] Speaker 2: Now we'll see if we can get that sorted out
[2:21] Speaker 2: or not. Fantastic bundbar. All right, well we'll give me
[2:29] Speaker 2: give me one second. Well, we'll get that. We'll get
[2:31] Speaker 2: that sorted out. I apologize. I was using a different
[2:34] Speaker 2: web browser for the for the live chat, and it
[2:38] Speaker 2: appears that the way it shows up in the system
[2:42] Speaker 2: is kind of funky.
[2:44] Speaker 1: Uh.
[2:45] Speaker 2: It shows up as one browser rather than two different browsers,
[2:48] Speaker 2: which I don't that's a weird situation. I don't know
[2:51] Speaker 2: why it's doing that. But give me one second. I'll
[2:54] Speaker 2: switch back to the old browser. And we'll we'll we'll
[2:58] Speaker 2: get it fixed up real quick. There shouldn't be a
[3:01] Speaker 2: big deal at all. It could be one second, we'll
[3:05] Speaker 2: get our super chat window going. I was curious if
[3:07] Speaker 2: the new browser was gonna work. It's a fork of
[3:10] Speaker 2: the it's a fork of the Firefox browser. One of
[3:17] Speaker 2: the audience members actually alerted me to its presence, so
[3:24] Speaker 2: I checked it out this week, and it seems to
[3:27] Speaker 2: work just fine until until you have to import the
[3:31] Speaker 2: screens into TikTok, or not TikTok, into stream Labs. Stream
[3:37] Speaker 2: Lab seems to be having a little bit of trouble there,
[3:39] Speaker 2: so we'll work through that later. All right, give me
[3:42] Speaker 2: one second, I'll have the other stream pulled in and
[3:45] Speaker 2: we'll get that chat box open. There you go, both
[3:49] Speaker 2: chat boxes are open, and then let me filter them
[3:54] Speaker 2: real quick. Cool. Now they're filtered, and then I'm gonna
[3:58] Speaker 2: go ahead to import both of them into stream Labs,
[4:04] Speaker 2: and then we should be ready to rock and roll, friends, Yeah,
[4:10] Speaker 2: ready to rock and roll. Let's see where's the other
[4:16] Speaker 2: one at the first one is live and working bouta
[4:22] Speaker 2: being bauda boom. I'm gonna get the second one ready
[4:26] Speaker 2: to go. Here let's see where is my opera browser.
[4:33] Speaker 2: There we go, second ones up and running, Bata being
[4:37] Speaker 2: bada boom. All right with that, friends, sorry about that.
[4:41] Speaker 2: Let me grab the first couple of super chats. We'll
[4:43] Speaker 2: get our first guest in here as well. Randy Wilson
[4:46] Speaker 2: in the house this morning, this afternoon, I think it's
[4:49] Speaker 2: afternoon technically. Thank you for gifting out ten dz memberships
[4:53] Speaker 2: and big announcements. For everyone who's been asking, I did
[4:57] Speaker 2: finally roll out a Patreon. It'll be in the description
[5:01] Speaker 2: of the video and it'll also be in my profile.
[5:03] Speaker 2: So if you want access to the cheat sheet, or
[5:06] Speaker 2: you want to support the channel but you don't want
[5:07] Speaker 2: to do it through YouTube, you can join the Patreon
[5:11] Speaker 2: and actually bypass the YouTube system altogether. So big w
[5:15] Speaker 2: finally getting a Patreon set up. And Randy, thank you
[5:18] Speaker 2: so much for the ten dollar supertests. Thank you for
[5:20] Speaker 2: your channel. I love it well, Randy, thank you for supporting.
[5:24] Speaker 2: It's members like you that keep the channel going. I
[5:27] Speaker 2: couldn't do it without the members. And Marcus, thank you
[5:30] Speaker 2: so much for the supertests. Friday the thirteenth, stream midday,
[5:34] Speaker 2: Ready for some unlucky, unholy barbecue. That's that's it. I
[5:38] Speaker 2: was actually thinking of doing some sort of Friday the
[5:41] Speaker 2: thirteenth theme, but there's nothing really out there. It's not
[5:44] Speaker 2: really a thing that people would recognize. Pierre, Welcome to
[5:47] Speaker 2: the Crack and Crew Elite and Nightman Cometh. Thank you
[5:50] Speaker 2: so much for the ten dollars superchestses far up the
[5:52] Speaker 2: grill for an afternoon barbecue. I'd crack open a cold one,
[5:55] Speaker 2: but it may not be appropriate while working. Listen, don't
[5:58] Speaker 2: get yourself fired, but definitely after work, crack opened a
[6:03] Speaker 2: cold one and cheers to cold brew with the friends.
[6:07] Speaker 2: La Silver Surfer, thank you so much for the ten
[6:09] Speaker 2: hour super thanks. I super appreciate that. Good to see
[6:13] Speaker 2: your friend, and Ginger Thunder, good to see you too,
[6:15] Speaker 2: says Glad to catch into the live looking forward to
[6:18] Speaker 2: entertaining conversations. Well, we're gonna do as much entertaining conversating
[6:23] Speaker 2: as we can, so that is the goal. And we've
[6:26] Speaker 2: got a couple of new members on the vertical stream
[6:30] Speaker 2: to the Crack and Crew Elite. T R. Eighty three,
[6:32] Speaker 2: Welcome to the Crack and Crue Elite and the raven Verse.
[6:35] Speaker 2: Welcome to the Crack and Crew Elite and Nerdy Dad,
[6:38] Speaker 2: great name. Welcome to the crack and cru Elite. All
[6:41] Speaker 2: you guys got access to the cheat sheet now if
[6:43] Speaker 2: you're in the elite. And Adam, my good friend, thank
[6:46] Speaker 2: you for the fight hour, super says in Early, Happy
[6:49] Speaker 2: early Father's day. Glad to have you cooking on another
[6:51] Speaker 2: long shift today. It's going to be a long day
[6:53] Speaker 2: to day. In fact, after my son goes to bed
[6:57] Speaker 2: later tonight, I'm going to be on recording with Sarah
[7:01] Speaker 2: to do another episode of our Bible studies. So it's
[7:04] Speaker 2: going to be a long one, but it'd be a
[7:05] Speaker 2: good one. And Cameron says, hello, sir, I missed your shows. Well, Cameron,
[7:09] Speaker 2: I missed you as well. And here in the coming
[7:11] Speaker 2: weeks will be cooking quite a bit more. But for now,
[7:16] Speaker 2: you know, work and family come first. And Dave, thank
[7:21] Speaker 2: you so much for the supertest, says hell. Yes, let
[7:22] Speaker 2: the barbecue commence. Listen, the gorilla is already on preheat.
[7:26] Speaker 2: Buddy and skepticuess, thank you for the supertest, says I'm
[7:30] Speaker 2: here for the duration of this twenty four hour barbecue.
[7:33] Speaker 3: Twenty twenty hour barbecue.
[7:34] Speaker 2: Holy shit, listen, I've had some long live streams yet.
[7:38] Speaker 2: But I don't know if I've done twenty hours yet.
[7:40] Speaker 2: I would if I needed to, but that's a new one.
[7:43] Speaker 2: I have twenty hours. I'm not sure I'm ready for
[7:46] Speaker 2: a twenty hour yet. And Steve always coming in to
[7:50] Speaker 2: argue with me, says, murder, grape and slavery being more
[7:53] Speaker 2: wrong is imaginary. Listen, Steve, if you don't think that murder,
[7:57] Speaker 2: grape and slavery are somehow wrong, then you're just telling
[8:01] Speaker 2: on yourself. And that's okay. We know that you don't
[8:03] Speaker 2: believe it's wrong. And Adele, thank you for the five dollars.
[8:07] Speaker 2: Supertests has been counting down the days. Thanks for kicking
[8:10] Speaker 2: off our weekend. Glad to see you well. Adele, thank
[8:13] Speaker 2: you so much for being here and thank you for
[8:15] Speaker 2: supporting the channel. And yes, the weekend has finally arrived.
[8:18] Speaker 2: I know some of you are still at work, but here.
[8:20] Speaker 2: In a couple of short, short hours, you'll be out
[8:22] Speaker 2: for the weekend. And Jason, thank you for gifting out
[8:25] Speaker 2: five d Z memberships Big W super appreciate that. And
[8:30] Speaker 2: Charles with the supertest says, is there anything that God
[8:32] Speaker 2: can do to prove it's real?
[8:35] Speaker 1: Seeing him?
[8:37] Speaker 2: Seeing, Hugh saying, Hi, seeing, is that supposed to be?
[8:44] Speaker 2: If if we don't have seeing, if we don't have
[8:46] Speaker 2: the intelligence to vet its claims, Well, listen, I know
[8:50] Speaker 2: what you're trying to say, right, You're essentially saying, you know,
[8:53] Speaker 2: if God can prove himself to be real, then do
[8:56] Speaker 2: we have the mental faculties to know that it's actually him?
[8:59] Speaker 3: And that's on him.
[9:00] Speaker 2: He created us, right, so if he wants us to
[9:02] Speaker 2: know that he's real, he could have created us with
[9:03] Speaker 2: the mental faculties to know that he's real. So that's
[9:06] Speaker 2: the way I would look at that. And Adam says,
[9:09] Speaker 2: if phil bro Drivele is the best evidence they have,
[9:15] Speaker 2: but I'm too dumb to grasp it, does that mean
[9:17] Speaker 2: I'm too dumb to believe in God and therefore get
[9:20] Speaker 2: the hell fire for being a dummy? Seems sus to be. Yeah,
[9:23] Speaker 2: pretty much. The doctrine of hell is the worst thing
[9:26] Speaker 2: Christianity could have contrived. It's the one thing that really
[9:30] Speaker 2: ruins the arguments for God. Not the one thing, but
[9:36] Speaker 2: it is one thing that I think definitely ruins the
[9:38] Speaker 2: arguments for God. And Rachel says, at home recovering from
[9:42] Speaker 2: a domino, surgery. Praise Doug. Everything went as expected. Best
[9:45] Speaker 2: way to recover is attending barbecue from the comfort of home. Well, listen,
[9:48] Speaker 2: hopefully you can have some good recovery and enjoy yourself
[9:52] Speaker 2: while you're at the barbecue and combat conversation with a
[9:56] Speaker 2: ten hour super chat. Thank you so much, as love
[9:58] Speaker 2: to show. Longtime listener question, how many comedians does it
[10:01] Speaker 2: take to.
[10:01] Speaker 3: Eat a whole Jesus?
[10:03] Speaker 2: So this is actually a really good question combat because
[10:06] Speaker 2: if you believe in trans substantiation. I can't say the word,
[10:09] Speaker 2: but you know what I mean. If you believe in
[10:11] Speaker 2: trans substantiation, then you do have to ask yourself, are
[10:16] Speaker 2: we eating part of Jesus or all of Jesus?
[10:19] Speaker 3: That's actually a really good question.
[10:20] Speaker 2: And if we're only eating part of Jesus, what part
[10:23] Speaker 2: are we consuming? I think that's a question that's worth asking.
[10:27] Speaker 2: All right now, with that, let me I think we've
[10:29] Speaker 2: read a couple of super chats. Let me grab real
[10:32] Speaker 2: quick our first guess. We'll pull Derek in and get
[10:36] Speaker 2: him on the stream. We can see him, can we
[10:40] Speaker 2: hear you, doctor McAllister? Well, we can almost hear you
[10:47] Speaker 2: one second, all.
[10:47] Speaker 4: Right, try to get him testing testing you hear me.
[10:51] Speaker 2: Okay, yeah, it always works better if you turn the
[10:54] Speaker 2: sound on on my end. Well, welcome in, doctor Derrick McAllister.
[11:02] Speaker 2: For those who don't know doctor Derek. Doctor Derek is
[11:05] Speaker 2: a professor of philosophy and he's come to have a
[11:08] Speaker 2: conversation with us Heathens today. And Derek, we appreciate you
[11:14] Speaker 2: spending some time with us.
[11:16] Speaker 3: And uh course.
[11:18] Speaker 2: I think you kind of already know the stick you've
[11:20] Speaker 2: seen my channel before, which is, you know, you're on
[11:24] Speaker 2: the theist side of things and I'm on the I
[11:27] Speaker 2: don't believe side of things. So I will start with
[11:30] Speaker 2: the typical question, which is what would be the best
[11:34] Speaker 2: evidence or argument for your particular God being real? Yeah?
[11:39] Speaker 4: Sure, so can I can I ask a preliminary question
[11:42] Speaker 4: just before we get into that, because I know once
[11:43] Speaker 4: we get into that, it'll like it'll kind of get
[11:46] Speaker 4: left behind. So could I ask why you want to know?
[11:50] Speaker 2: Because I mean, I think believing things that are true
[11:53] Speaker 2: is a good thing to do.
[11:55] Speaker 4: Okay, So is it a is it a matter of
[11:58] Speaker 4: just to get clear here, you're trying to find out
[12:03] Speaker 4: if God exists. If he exists, you're on board with it,
[12:05] Speaker 4: you would believe or is it just maybe merely educational.
[12:08] Speaker 4: It's like, well, I just want to kind of lay
[12:10] Speaker 4: out these answers out there for everybody to see. It
[12:13] Speaker 4: doesn't matter to me either one, I just kind of
[12:14] Speaker 4: want to know where we're starting from. Well, I want
[12:17] Speaker 4: to believe whatever is true. Right now, it just so
[12:19] Speaker 4: happens to be. I don't see any good reason to
[12:21] Speaker 4: believe that God is real. But if there was a
[12:24] Speaker 4: good reason to believe, though, I certainly would.
[12:25] Speaker 2: Now when it comes to like the formal versions of God,
[12:29] Speaker 2: like the God described in the Koran or the Bible,
[12:32] Speaker 2: different things like that, I don't think there's any redeeming
[12:34] Speaker 2: those particular God concepts. But if there's another God concept
[12:38] Speaker 2: that can be proven, i'd certainly be open to it.
[12:42] Speaker 1: Sure.
[12:42] Speaker 4: Yeah, So to answer your question, I'm Catholic. I'm a
[12:47] Speaker 4: Catholic convert. Actually it took me a while to get there,
[12:49] Speaker 4: but I've only been Catholic by about six years now.
[12:53] Speaker 2: Raised Christian more or less my whole life.
[12:55] Speaker 4: I had a period where I was an atheist, so
[12:57] Speaker 4: I'm quite familiar with the thinking that goes into that,
[13:01] Speaker 4: and I was convinced that God digniss for a while
[13:04] Speaker 4: but so if you were asking me my reasons, I
[13:07] Speaker 4: think the best evidence for believing in God is the
[13:11] Speaker 4: cosmological argument in the original initial event.
[13:14] Speaker 1: Of the Big Big Bang.
[13:15] Speaker 2: Okay, so clum.
[13:18] Speaker 4: Well, not necessarily the clomb version, but I prefer the
[13:23] Speaker 4: five ways. I take them all as Yeah, Quinas is
[13:27] Speaker 4: five ways, which originally are actually aristotles. So I think
[13:30] Speaker 4: it's significant that you know, even a so called pagan,
[13:34] Speaker 4: you know, believed that there was some some divine creator
[13:37] Speaker 4: beginning to the universe.
[13:39] Speaker 2: Well, yeah, I mean the Pagans believed in a god
[13:42] Speaker 2: or multiple gods. I think when we the way we
[13:44] Speaker 2: say pagan today has a different meaning than what people
[13:47] Speaker 2: might have meant a long time ago.
[13:49] Speaker 3: But that being said, go ahead, go ahead.
[13:52] Speaker 2: Then if that's the argument you want to start with,
[13:54] Speaker 2: I guess start any way you want to, whether you
[13:57] Speaker 2: want to explain it or the word.
[13:58] Speaker 3: Do you don't want to give premisses?
[14:01] Speaker 1: Yeah, well so I'd have done videos on this.
[14:03] Speaker 4: You're welcome to go look at my channel on it,
[14:06] Speaker 4: anybody who welcome there in my lives, I did a
[14:08] Speaker 4: full one and two version of kind of split it
[14:12] Speaker 4: into the five Ways one through three and the four
[14:13] Speaker 4: through five, so you can welcome to go see them
[14:15] Speaker 4: if you really want to do a deep dive. But
[14:17] Speaker 4: basically the idea is it had to have come from
[14:20] Speaker 4: somewhere the initial event. And I think most most scientists,
[14:25] Speaker 4: and I'm not sure about most philosophers because they're kind
[14:28] Speaker 4: of wonky sometimes, but most scientists believe in the Big Bang.
[14:33] Speaker 4: At last I checked the statistics on that, or about
[14:35] Speaker 4: ninety nine point nine percent of the scientists believe in
[14:38] Speaker 4: the Big Bang. It's just like what might be before,
[14:41] Speaker 4: whether they are multi versus whether there's a big crunch
[14:44] Speaker 4: coming after that or a big freeze. So in other words,
[14:47] Speaker 4: they put qualifications on what you mean by the Big Bang,
[14:51] Speaker 4: but most believe in a big bank sort of some
[14:53] Speaker 4: initial event. Now, based on what I've seen with you before,
[14:59] Speaker 4: you seem to think that the universe is eternal. Now
[15:03] Speaker 4: do you think that that? I don't know, so I
[15:08] Speaker 4: don't believe that obviously. I think that there had to
[15:11] Speaker 4: be some initial event. And I wonder what makes you
[15:14] Speaker 4: believe that? So, I think because an infinite regress is impossible.
[15:18] Speaker 4: Why because if an infinite if an infinite regress exists,
[15:25] Speaker 4: then it had to have had a cause.
[15:28] Speaker 2: No, it's an infinite chain of causes.
[15:32] Speaker 4: So when it comes to the universe existence, right, it's
[15:38] Speaker 4: either going to be okay, the reason for the universe
[15:40] Speaker 4: existing is just there is no reason. Another answer would
[15:46] Speaker 4: be okay, it has a reason for its existence, but
[15:48] Speaker 4: it's within itself. And then the third, of course, the
[15:51] Speaker 4: Christian response would line up with this one. It has
[15:54] Speaker 4: a reason for its existence, but that reason is external
[15:58] Speaker 4: to the universe. So I go with the third. But
[16:02] Speaker 4: which one of those are you going with?
[16:04] Speaker 2: Well? I don't believe the universe has a reason, but
[16:06] Speaker 2: as I don't think that we have any reason to
[16:08] Speaker 2: believe that it had an initial moment either.
[16:13] Speaker 1: So you don't believe in the Big Bang?
[16:16] Speaker 3: No I do.
[16:17] Speaker 2: I think you fundamentally misunderstand what the Big Bang is.
[16:19] Speaker 2: The Big Bang is not saying that the universe once
[16:22] Speaker 2: didn't exist and then it poofed into existence.
[16:25] Speaker 3: In fact, a recent study has been done on this.
[16:27] Speaker 2: A recent survey has been done on this and discovered
[16:30] Speaker 2: that the majority of cosmologists and physicists agree with that
[16:34] Speaker 2: sentiment that the Big Bang was not necessarily the start
[16:37] Speaker 2: of all things. It's just how we got to where
[16:39] Speaker 2: we're at.
[16:40] Speaker 1: Today.
[16:42] Speaker 2: Okay, so what came before the Big Bang?
[16:45] Speaker 1: Then?
[16:45] Speaker 2: I mean, you tell me, No, one really knows, Like
[16:48] Speaker 2: we don't have the tools to investigate what form or
[16:51] Speaker 2: what shaped the universe was in prior to the Big Bang.
[16:54] Speaker 2: But there's a couple of different models for it. There's
[16:57] Speaker 2: cosmic inflation, there's quantum foam, and then there's the Big
[17:03] Speaker 2: Bang big crunch theory. My particular opinion is that the
[17:07] Speaker 2: Big Bang Big crunch theory is the most not the
[17:11] Speaker 2: most credible, but I think it makes the most sense.
[17:15] Speaker 4: The Big Bang big crunch. Yeah, okay, that's where we
[17:20] Speaker 4: had a bang and it's likely to sort of reverse
[17:22] Speaker 4: and go back into a crunch and perhaps do the
[17:24] Speaker 4: same thing.
[17:25] Speaker 1: Over and over.
[17:25] Speaker 2: Yeah, an infinite number of times.
[17:27] Speaker 1: Okay.
[17:29] Speaker 4: I so I looked up that as well. And cosmologists,
[17:34] Speaker 4: this is not necessarily a fringe theory, but it's not
[17:38] Speaker 4: a dominant theory. Not very many cosmologists and well.
[17:42] Speaker 2: There is no dominant theory.
[17:45] Speaker 4: Well, the dominant theory would just be the Big Bang,
[17:46] Speaker 4: which big Bang doesn't cause.
[17:48] Speaker 2: It before the Big Bang, the Big Bang doesn't make
[17:51] Speaker 2: a claim as to what came before it.
[17:55] Speaker 4: Yeah, No, so it's in its in its current form,
[17:58] Speaker 4: it is it is quiet about that sort of has
[18:03] Speaker 4: a sort of agnostic view about what came before, if
[18:05] Speaker 4: anything came before. And so are these like I was saying,
[18:08] Speaker 4: these these qualifications, are these add ons, But this certain
[18:11] Speaker 4: qualification one with the big bang and then the big crunch,
[18:14] Speaker 4: just is not one that's widely held.
[18:18] Speaker 2: Well, I would disagree. Where do you get that number from?
[18:21] Speaker 2: Because ICE treat every Sunday with an actual physicist, a
[18:25] Speaker 2: PhD physicist who disagrees with that vehemently.
[18:29] Speaker 4: Okay, I mean, I'd love to talk to him. I mean,
[18:32] Speaker 4: I'm open to learning about this. But it's my understanding
[18:35] Speaker 4: that that's not a very dominant model, first of all,
[18:37] Speaker 4: because you would need for it to slow down. It's
[18:39] Speaker 4: not showing any signs of slowing down. It is expansion. Okay,
[18:43] Speaker 4: So if it.
[18:43] Speaker 2: Were, the acceleration rate according to the latest DESI data
[18:47] Speaker 2: is that the acceleration is decreasing with every measurement.
[18:52] Speaker 4: Sorry I misspoke there. So if it is slowing down,
[18:55] Speaker 4: which I think that it is, it has no signs
[18:58] Speaker 4: of that reversing. That's the sort of thing, this hypothetical
[19:01] Speaker 4: speculation that we suppose will happen, but there's no evidence
[19:05] Speaker 4: that it will.
[19:06] Speaker 2: Gravity is the evidence.
[19:11] Speaker 4: Why I think that gravity will somehow make everything come
[19:14] Speaker 4: back into one point.
[19:16] Speaker 3: That's how gravity works.
[19:18] Speaker 4: Gravity holds planets in orbit around there, gravity around certain
[19:24] Speaker 4: things with mass, but they don't. I mean, what would
[19:27] Speaker 4: be the central point of the universe. That would be
[19:31] Speaker 4: the thing with you know, infinite almost infinite, but a
[19:36] Speaker 4: really infinitesimal Well sorry I used that word, so really
[19:41] Speaker 4: large let's say, mass enough to swallow the universe back
[19:47] Speaker 4: up into itself.
[19:48] Speaker 2: Well, it's not being swallowed into a mass. It's forming
[19:50] Speaker 2: a mass when it collapses.
[19:53] Speaker 4: Right, Yeah, I just I mean because if you get
[19:58] Speaker 4: far enough away from a planet no longer in its orbit. Yeah,
[20:02] Speaker 4: So this point, say, let's say the initial point, not
[20:06] Speaker 4: chronologically speaking, but in spatial terms, if you get far
[20:11] Speaker 4: enough outside that thing's orbit, then it just wouldn't have
[20:15] Speaker 4: any impact on anymore, especially if it's accelerating and it's decelerating.
[20:21] Speaker 4: So we're to suppose it's somehow it's going to it.
[20:26] Speaker 4: I mean, I can understand the reasoning because it's like
[20:28] Speaker 4: throwing a ball into the air, But that's when you
[20:32] Speaker 4: have an enormous mass. The Earth with enormous force of gravity,
[20:39] Speaker 4: and you're throwing this really tiny ball up in the air.
[20:42] Speaker 4: Of course it's going to come back down. But why
[20:45] Speaker 4: think that the universe is like that? What would be
[20:48] Speaker 4: the central point?
[20:49] Speaker 2: That is so because we have mathematical models that predict it.
[20:53] Speaker 2: So Sean Carroll has already done the work on this,
[20:55] Speaker 2: He's published on it.
[20:57] Speaker 4: Okay, yeah, I'm not familiar with that. Now, I don't
[21:03] Speaker 4: buy this. There's a lot of reasons to be skeptical
[21:05] Speaker 4: about this, I think, But I think we can even
[21:08] Speaker 4: go further right, So, like, if this model is true,
[21:12] Speaker 4: this supposes an infinite regress, and I just don't think
[21:16] Speaker 4: an infinite regress is possible. But I think in principle
[21:19] Speaker 4: it's not possible.
[21:19] Speaker 2: Why not?
[21:21] Speaker 4: I think it's mathematically possible. So I don't think it's
[21:25] Speaker 4: physically possible, But why not because we don't ever see
[21:30] Speaker 4: that in ability.
[21:31] Speaker 1: We've never seen it before.
[21:32] Speaker 2: So doctor McAllister, I'll let you know. I have the
[21:34] Speaker 2: infinite regress argument. At least once a week. Everybody who
[21:39] Speaker 2: doesn't like this theory is positive that infinite regresses aren't possible.
[21:44] Speaker 3: Not one of them can tell me why.
[21:47] Speaker 2: So if the only argument is, well, infinite regresses aren't
[21:49] Speaker 2: possible because I don't like them. That's not a good argument.
[21:52] Speaker 4: It's not the argument I'm making. I said that they're
[21:56] Speaker 4: mathematically possible. Sure, I mean, we could just think of
[21:58] Speaker 4: negative numbers. They regress infinitely. But for someone to claim
[22:05] Speaker 4: that in the physical world there's an infinite regress going
[22:09] Speaker 4: back in time of physical objects, this is a hard
[22:14] Speaker 4: claim to swallow. I don't think it's physically possible, and
[22:18] Speaker 4: because there's no direct empiricals of observation of it.
[22:21] Speaker 2: The observation in science is that matter and energy can't
[22:24] Speaker 2: be created or destroyed.
[22:26] Speaker 4: So yeah, that means it exists forever. That's not necessarily true.
[22:32] Speaker 2: Give me one good reason why I would believe that
[22:34] Speaker 2: all the matter, time, and space in our universe once
[22:37] Speaker 2: just didn't exist.
[22:40] Speaker 4: So so let me go back to that claim. I
[22:45] Speaker 4: agree with you that matter can neither be created nor destroyed,
[22:51] Speaker 4: perfectly fine with me. I don't agree with the inference
[22:54] Speaker 4: to the conclusion that therefore the universe is eternal.
[22:58] Speaker 1: I don't think. I think that's a bit of a leap.
[23:00] Speaker 2: We can something come from nothing? No, okay, well, we've
[23:05] Speaker 2: got two loge logic arguments and premise number one. Something
[23:08] Speaker 2: doesn't come from nothing premise number or conclusion or premise
[23:11] Speaker 2: number two. We have something conclusion, there's always been something, right,
[23:17] Speaker 2: and the Christian would just say that that's God, and
[23:20] Speaker 2: the non Christian would say there's no need for God
[23:22] Speaker 2: because the universe has existed forever.
[23:25] Speaker 1: Right.
[23:26] Speaker 4: So I so let me let me explain the reasoning
[23:30] Speaker 4: here like that I'm trying to get at So, like
[23:33] Speaker 4: I said, I don't agree with the inference. I agree
[23:36] Speaker 4: that matter can be neither created in order short, but
[23:39] Speaker 4: I don't agree with the infasity the conclusion. Therefore the
[23:42] Speaker 4: universe's eternal. I don't agree with that because the Christian
[23:45] Speaker 4: can also say consistently that, yeah, matter can neither be
[23:49] Speaker 4: created in orders short once matter has been introduced into
[23:54] Speaker 4: the world, like yeah, because why would we even have
[23:57] Speaker 4: that principle to begin with, Because through direct observation we
[24:00] Speaker 4: have this principle in science by people during the Alignment
[24:03] Speaker 4: area during the sixteen one hundred and seventeen hundred saying well,
[24:07] Speaker 4: you know, matter can neither be created nor destory. They're
[24:10] Speaker 4: not saying that from the standpoint of the beginning of
[24:13] Speaker 4: the universe. They're saying it as a principle of science
[24:17] Speaker 4: based on observation and then there and so to take that,
[24:22] Speaker 4: take that really narrow claim and then apply it to well,
[24:26] Speaker 4: I suppose then like it would be understandable that within
[24:29] Speaker 4: their perspective that, of course, at that time in history,
[24:33] Speaker 4: making that claim is not an extraordinary outlandish claim because
[24:38] Speaker 4: it's understandable that something would neither be created nor destor
[24:41] Speaker 4: it now. But that doesn't entail that it was never
[24:46] Speaker 4: created to begin with? Does that make any sense? What
[24:48] Speaker 4: I'm saying?
[24:49] Speaker 2: It makes sense, but we have no evidence that it
[24:51] Speaker 2: was created or that it once didn't exist. Right before
[24:54] Speaker 2: we posit a need for a creator, we probably need
[24:57] Speaker 2: to lay down some sort of established fact that it
[25:01] Speaker 2: once didn't exist and needed to come into an existence.
[25:06] Speaker 1: Yeah.
[25:07] Speaker 4: So I think a few of the arguments Thomas Aquinas
[25:11] Speaker 4: like the contingency argument, for example, the idea that not
[25:14] Speaker 4: everything in the world can be contingent. And so if
[25:17] Speaker 4: you want to say that the universe is eternal, I
[25:19] Speaker 4: think you would have to say that it would be necessary.
[25:23] Speaker 4: Do you think that that's Do you think the universe
[25:25] Speaker 4: necessarily exists like it couldn't possibly be otherwise.
[25:29] Speaker 2: I mean the fact that it exists, I think demand
[25:31] Speaker 2: that it does exist necessarily, or else it wouldn't exist.
[25:37] Speaker 4: So you just it seems like a kind of bite
[25:39] Speaker 4: the bullet position you'd have to take. And that's understandable.
[25:43] Speaker 2: Is that the universe exist problem, I'm willing to bite
[25:45] Speaker 2: that villain.
[25:45] Speaker 4: Yeah, it's not what I meant that the universe exists
[25:49] Speaker 4: necessarily because it exists, So that the universe exists necessarily,
[25:52] Speaker 4: it's sort of a bite the ball. And that's understandable because, like,
[25:55] Speaker 4: what other response could you have other than saying because
[26:01] Speaker 4: if you want to say it's contingent, which you know,
[26:04] Speaker 4: I think most things in the universe are contingent, right,
[26:07] Speaker 4: But like I would say, nearly everything in the universe
[26:09] Speaker 4: is contingent, but professor, not everything.
[26:12] Speaker 2: Look at it from my point of view, Right, we're
[26:13] Speaker 2: saying that the thing that we know exists the universe. Right,
[26:17] Speaker 2: I'm saying the thing that we know for a fact
[26:19] Speaker 2: exists exists necessarily. You're saying, no, once didn't exist and
[26:24] Speaker 2: something that we have no evidence of caused it to exist.
[26:27] Speaker 2: So you're saying, I'm saying the thing we know exists
[26:30] Speaker 2: exists necessarily. You're saying a thing that we don't know
[26:33] Speaker 2: exists exists necessarily and caused everything to come into existence.
[26:37] Speaker 2: I think one of those is just an easier thing
[26:39] Speaker 2: to grab hold of than the other, and the thing
[26:41] Speaker 2: that's easier to grab hold of is a thing that
[26:44] Speaker 2: we know already exists.
[26:47] Speaker 1: That's fair, But.
[26:48] Speaker 4: Think about this claim that the universe exists necessarily, Like
[26:51] Speaker 4: I don't make this claim about like oak trees, for example, obviously,
[26:55] Speaker 4: because oak trees are contingent, it could have been otherwise.
[26:58] Speaker 4: Like off, an acorn falls on a hill, lands in
[27:01] Speaker 4: a different spot, gets eaten up by a squirrel or something.
[27:04] Speaker 4: There's not going to be an oak tree there, so
[27:06] Speaker 4: it could preball have been otherwise. And you and I
[27:08] Speaker 4: are both contingent. In fact, everything in the world that
[27:11] Speaker 4: we know of is contingent. So why think that the
[27:14] Speaker 4: universe is somehow different?
[27:17] Speaker 2: Why is it not contingent?
[27:19] Speaker 1: Right?
[27:20] Speaker 2: No, No, I'm asking you. In my worldview, it's an
[27:23] Speaker 2: infinite regress of contingencies.
[27:26] Speaker 4: Do you see the absurdity of that? With all due respect,
[27:29] Speaker 4: like the infinite regress of contingencies?
[27:32] Speaker 2: Again, you haven't provided a reason why I should reject
[27:35] Speaker 2: that regress other than incredulity. That if all you have
[27:39] Speaker 2: against this is incredulity, you.
[27:41] Speaker 3: Don't have an argument.
[27:43] Speaker 4: It's not incredulity. I am expressing incredulity, but it's not
[27:45] Speaker 4: merely incredulity. That's my reason.
[27:48] Speaker 2: Why can there not be an infinite regress in the
[27:51] Speaker 2: past the same way there's going to be infinite stuff
[27:54] Speaker 2: in the future.
[27:56] Speaker 4: So if there were an infinite regress of contingent, let's
[28:02] Speaker 4: say chain a series of events, right, because that's all
[28:07] Speaker 4: the universe is. It's just objects, and then you know
[28:10] Speaker 4: there changes, right, that accounts for both space and time.
[28:13] Speaker 2: I think there is.
[28:15] Speaker 4: Right, space is just a measurement between objects, and time
[28:19] Speaker 4: is just a measurement between change. So so really we're
[28:23] Speaker 4: not talking about space and time forget about that. Those
[28:26] Speaker 4: are just kind of like the buckets in which we
[28:28] Speaker 4: place these things. Really we're talking about objects and their changes.
[28:31] Speaker 2: Well, I think you for that conversation to be had,
[28:35] Speaker 2: you might refer to physics, and physics believes that time
[28:40] Speaker 2: and space are web that is somehow a fundamental property
[28:44] Speaker 2: of the physical reality. Right, So I don't know if
[28:47] Speaker 2: I would call space time a bucket because it seems
[28:51] Speaker 2: to be a property of the physical world. But I'm
[28:54] Speaker 2: not a physicist. Someone like Sean Carroll, doctor Blitz, William Kinney,
[28:59] Speaker 2: like they could explained that in great detail that someone
[29:03] Speaker 2: of my position couldn't sure.
[29:06] Speaker 4: And I'm speaking outside of my expertise just to flag this,
[29:08] Speaker 4: I'm not. I don't specialize in this area, so I
[29:13] Speaker 4: would be the first to defer to somebody who is
[29:17] Speaker 4: an expert on these things. But so far as I
[29:19] Speaker 4: understand it, space time, however they're interwoven. It takes into
[29:26] Speaker 4: that thing is not something that actually exists itself.
[29:30] Speaker 1: That's why they use the metaphor of a bucket. We
[29:33] Speaker 1: can discard that if you like.
[29:34] Speaker 4: But but the idea here is that space doesn't.
[29:37] Speaker 3: It's almosterfying question.
[29:40] Speaker 2: Space time doesn't exist. I guess I'm confused.
[29:43] Speaker 4: In this sense that a hole does not exist. Right,
[29:46] Speaker 4: If I dig a hole, the hole doesn't exist because
[29:48] Speaker 4: there's nothing like physical There's no matter there or anything like.
[29:51] Speaker 4: That's all I'm saying about space like, it's just the space,
[29:55] Speaker 4: the emptiness between objects.
[29:58] Speaker 2: I mean, perhaps I I don't know if that's my
[30:01] Speaker 2: understanding of space time. But I don't know if it
[30:04] Speaker 2: matters for for where we were we're trying to get to.
[30:07] Speaker 2: And I don't know if we want to waste a
[30:08] Speaker 2: bunch of time on that, especially since that's me that
[30:11] Speaker 2: one of us are actually physicists.
[30:13] Speaker 4: Sure, so the idea here is that instead of talking
[30:17] Speaker 4: about space, time and the beginning of the universe, because
[30:20] Speaker 4: really the universe is just the collection of the whole,
[30:22] Speaker 4: I want to just talk about objects, the things inside
[30:25] Speaker 4: the universe, because that's really our Yeah, that's our focus.
[30:29] Speaker 4: We want to talk about the changes between those things.
[30:32] Speaker 4: And and once you talk about you move the focus
[30:34] Speaker 4: to those things. Talk about those things are the things
[30:37] Speaker 4: that form the series, the series of causes, the cosmtive effect. Right,
[30:43] Speaker 4: I don't think that a series of contingent things can
[30:47] Speaker 4: have a cause and cause of it. Sorry, cosmic effect
[30:51] Speaker 4: chain forever.
[30:53] Speaker 1: Right? Why not? Because if we are.
[30:57] Speaker 4: Seen, say, let's take the line of dominoes, it's very
[30:59] Speaker 4: base example. Obviously the universe is much more complex than that,
[31:02] Speaker 4: and the objects in the universe are more complex. But
[31:05] Speaker 4: if we take a line of dominoes, the domino line
[31:08] Speaker 4: is falling now, which you know in our analogy, it
[31:11] Speaker 4: is falling out, it's moving now. We see objects that
[31:13] Speaker 4: are moving, causes and effects are happening. So the line
[31:16] Speaker 4: of dominoes in the analogy, they're falling. What we're saying,
[31:20] Speaker 4: if it extends infinitely into the past, is there is
[31:24] Speaker 4: no beginning. And so if there is no beginning, then
[31:28] Speaker 4: the dominoes that are falling now shouldn't be falling because
[31:31] Speaker 4: they never began to fall. They never began to fall.
[31:33] Speaker 2: We don't have dominoes.
[31:36] Speaker 3: I understand the metaphor.
[31:37] Speaker 2: The metaphor is like, we shouldn't have movement if there
[31:40] Speaker 2: wasn't a first move but I disagree. I think it's
[31:44] Speaker 2: the category you're suggesting that there needs to be a
[31:48] Speaker 2: first movement for movement to happen.
[31:52] Speaker 4: I'm inferring based on you know, there's movement now, and
[32:01] Speaker 4: there had to have movement begin to move. So there
[32:05] Speaker 4: had to have figure out you know, let it be
[32:09] Speaker 4: at whatever time you like. It could have been two
[32:11] Speaker 4: hours ago, you know, it could Some metaphysicians play around
[32:14] Speaker 4: with this, they're like, oh, yeah, the universe could have
[32:16] Speaker 4: just pop into existence a second.
[32:18] Speaker 1: Ago or something.
[32:18] Speaker 2: I mean theoretically that is possible, like right, all of
[32:21] Speaker 2: and then all of our memories could just be fictitious
[32:25] Speaker 2: made up at the moment of creation two minutes ago.
[32:29] Speaker 1: Sure. Yeah, so people like to play around with this.
[32:31] Speaker 4: So so I'm not suggesting that, of course. But it
[32:34] Speaker 4: can be at whatever far back or however proximate to
[32:39] Speaker 4: now recent, or it can be it, you know, really
[32:43] Speaker 4: far back in the past. But at some point there
[32:46] Speaker 4: had to be some first domino to fall, otherwise there
[32:52] Speaker 4: just wouldn't be dominance falling now.
[32:54] Speaker 2: I don't think so. I think that domino was caused
[32:56] Speaker 2: by the domino prior to it, and the domino prior
[32:58] Speaker 2: to it, and the domino prior to it. And I
[33:01] Speaker 2: think the God doesn't solve the problem because that God
[33:04] Speaker 2: has to figure out why that infinite regress is allowed
[33:08] Speaker 2: through special pleading. But the infinite regress of the universe isn't.
[33:13] Speaker 4: So God, if you want to go there, if you
[33:14] Speaker 4: want to talk about that, God's not an infinite regress.
[33:17] Speaker 2: Oh, he certainly is. No, it's not absolutely is. Because
[33:21] Speaker 2: God can't exist without time either. Why I think that
[33:25] Speaker 2: God can't exist without time because you need time to
[33:28] Speaker 2: do things, and God does things like God has thoughts,
[33:31] Speaker 2: God speaks. All those things happen in time. God has thoughts.
[33:41] Speaker 2: God speaks the only according to Christian view that we're
[33:46] Speaker 2: examining here, the first time that we get God speaking
[33:50] Speaker 2: is at the creation of the universe. He's spoken into.
[33:53] Speaker 4: Christians, right, So Christians could could say, Okay, well, yeah,
[33:59] Speaker 4: of course it's speaking there. But why think that they're
[34:02] Speaker 4: speaking prior to time?
[34:03] Speaker 1: Like you suggested?
[34:04] Speaker 2: Did he think about creating the universe before he created it?
[34:09] Speaker 4: Great question, God's thoughts as we're told or not like
[34:12] Speaker 4: our thoughts, but we can you know, not to be
[34:14] Speaker 4: simplistic and patronizing about that, but God's thoughts are immediately
[34:21] Speaker 4: accessible to him at all times, and Christians belief in
[34:25] Speaker 4: impassibility that and unchangeability in God. Well, let me ask
[34:29] Speaker 4: a better question, be affected whatsoever?
[34:33] Speaker 2: Yes, do you believe that prior to the creation of
[34:35] Speaker 2: the universe that Jesus and yahwe could have a conversation
[34:39] Speaker 2: with each other. I don't think that they would need
[34:43] Speaker 2: to converse with one another. And the way that we
[34:46] Speaker 2: are discussing, yeah, of course that implies time.
[34:51] Speaker 1: That implies time.
[34:52] Speaker 2: If they did it, I only said it was possible
[34:54] Speaker 2: that they did it. That's what I'm saying, though, If
[34:57] Speaker 2: they're capable of having a conversation that cover station can
[35:00] Speaker 2: only happen in time.
[35:02] Speaker 4: I mean, we're capable of going to Mars, but we
[35:04] Speaker 4: haven't done it, right, So, like, but one of some
[35:07] Speaker 4: things possible doesn't mean that that requires time, right, So,
[35:14] Speaker 4: so it would be like mental communication, It would be
[35:18] Speaker 4: like my thoughts being immediately accessible to me.
[35:21] Speaker 2: Well, then they're not having more Then they're not having
[35:24] Speaker 2: a more immediate way. Then they're not having a conversation.
[35:28] Speaker 4: So no, so that it wouldn't be a conversation the
[35:31] Speaker 4: way humans understand conversations.
[35:33] Speaker 1: No, not at all.
[35:34] Speaker 2: Okay, So then they technically can't have a conversation prior
[35:37] Speaker 2: to the creation of space, time, universe.
[35:42] Speaker 1: So let me explain to you this way.
[35:44] Speaker 4: So, so just to answer your question, sorry, could you
[35:47] Speaker 4: repeat the question.
[35:48] Speaker 1: I don't want to just move on without.
[35:50] Speaker 2: Right, Okay, So, Mike, my complaint here is easy. Anything
[35:54] Speaker 2: that involves a sequencing of time, like having a thought
[35:57] Speaker 2: or sharing a thought, none of that's actual possible without time.
[36:03] Speaker 1: Okay. Yeah.
[36:04] Speaker 4: So the idea here is that God is according to
[36:08] Speaker 4: philosophers and theologians. And I don't mean to bog this
[36:11] Speaker 4: down in any terminology whatsoever, but it is clear that
[36:14] Speaker 4: if we are criticizing a specific view, it's important that
[36:17] Speaker 4: we know what the view is claiming.
[36:19] Speaker 1: I think you'd agree.
[36:20] Speaker 4: So philosophers and theologians think that God is what they
[36:25] Speaker 4: call pure actuality. There is no actuality and potentiality. These
[36:30] Speaker 4: are pitted against each other. Is sort of like, you
[36:33] Speaker 4: have what's potential, then you have what's actual. Something that
[36:35] Speaker 4: is potential, something that is possible to happen. Something that
[36:38] Speaker 4: is actual is just something that is currently happening. So
[36:42] Speaker 4: if God is pure actuality, that means that there is
[36:46] Speaker 4: no potentiality in God. There's no potentiality at all. Everything
[36:50] Speaker 4: that could be happening God is already happening. So this
[36:53] Speaker 4: is how they consider God's thoughts and ideas. They are
[36:56] Speaker 4: immediately accessible to That's what I meant by immediately accessible
[37:00] Speaker 4: the idea that these things are actually what they anything
[37:04] Speaker 4: they would be like For me as a human and
[37:07] Speaker 4: for you, we have potential thoughts. Not all of our
[37:11] Speaker 4: thoughts are actual to us, but for God they are
[37:16] Speaker 4: all actual.
[37:17] Speaker 2: To him, right, which I'm saying though thoughts are sequenced, no,
[37:24] Speaker 2: or if you don't have a thought, thoughts are only thoughts.
[37:26] Speaker 1: Are only sequenced.
[37:27] Speaker 4: If it's discursive reasoning, you know how it's discursive means
[37:32] Speaker 4: kind of like you write in cursive it's like from
[37:33] Speaker 4: one thought to another, to another to another.
[37:35] Speaker 1: This wouldn't be the case in God.
[37:36] Speaker 2: In the mind of God, oh certainly it is, He
[37:38] Speaker 2: says to in Exus, how's that?
[37:41] Speaker 1: Let me for you.
[37:42] Speaker 2: I think it's Exos thirty three. Let me double check, yeah,
[38:04] Speaker 2: extra thirty three five, And I'll read it to you.
[38:11] Speaker 2: I'll put it on the screen, although you won't be
[38:13] Speaker 2: able to see it, unfortunately, but I think everyone else
[38:15] Speaker 2: will be able to see it.
[38:17] Speaker 5: Okay.
[38:32] Speaker 2: So God is upset after the Golden Calf incident, and
[38:36] Speaker 2: he doesn't quite know what he's going to do with
[38:38] Speaker 2: the people, and so he says this really interesting thing.
[38:44] Speaker 2: Has Moses speak to the people, And this is his words.
[38:49] Speaker 2: The Lord said to Moses, say to the Israelites, you
[38:51] Speaker 2: are a stiff necked people. Four. I'm sorry. If for
[38:54] Speaker 2: a single moment I should go up among you, I
[38:57] Speaker 2: would consume you. So now take off your ornaments, and
[38:59] Speaker 2: I will decide what to do with you. And some
[39:02] Speaker 2: translations will say I will think or I will consider
[39:05] Speaker 2: what to do with you, which means God's processes, his
[39:09] Speaker 2: mental faculties are operating in a sequence.
[39:15] Speaker 4: Okay, so that's your proof that God thinks discursively. Well,
[39:19] Speaker 4: he says so, right.
[39:22] Speaker 1: Okay, So.
[39:24] Speaker 4: First of all, it's very dangerous to have one cherry
[39:28] Speaker 4: picked text as a proof text. And we know that
[39:31] Speaker 4: in Christian theology, I've got more anthropomorphic traits are projected
[39:37] Speaker 4: onto God that God doesn't necessarily have, Like does God
[39:41] Speaker 4: really walk in the garden? Does God really have a
[39:45] Speaker 4: face that he turns to people and turns away from people? No,
[39:48] Speaker 4: of course not. So he puts things in terms that
[39:54] Speaker 4: humans can understand it.
[39:56] Speaker 1: You know.
[39:56] Speaker 4: So I think that I would translate this. I think
[39:59] Speaker 4: I'm not alone. Let me think about what to do
[40:01] Speaker 4: with you. It would be something like, look, what I
[40:04] Speaker 4: end up doing is going to be dependent upon what
[40:07] Speaker 4: you do. Like it'll like what avenue you choose is
[40:12] Speaker 4: going to determine what my my my outcome is.
[40:18] Speaker 2: And the problem is he didn't say that that's what
[40:20] Speaker 2: you want him to say, right, But the problem is
[40:25] Speaker 2: the Bible doesn't read like Wooden literalism, right. But the
[40:30] Speaker 2: problem is I'm reading it for what it says, and
[40:33] Speaker 2: God says I need to make a decision about what
[40:36] Speaker 2: to do with you people. That is a sequenced event.
[40:40] Speaker 4: I didn't expect to get into a biblical analysis here,
[40:44] Speaker 4: but let me ask a follow up question with perspective
[40:47] Speaker 4: and just interpreting. Would you suggest then that anytime the
[40:52] Speaker 4: Bible says something, we should just take it at face value.
[40:56] Speaker 2: No, I think we know when an idiom is being employed,
[40:59] Speaker 2: Like when it says Adam knew his wife Eve. We
[41:01] Speaker 2: know that's an idiom for doing the cha chaw. We
[41:04] Speaker 2: get that. And there's lots of Hebrew idioms. I know
[41:07] Speaker 2: because I had to learn them when I took Hebrew.
[41:10] Speaker 2: So the reality is, we know when a metaphor is
[41:13] Speaker 2: being employed. We know when an idiom's being employed. This
[41:16] Speaker 2: idea of well, every time God says something that makes
[41:20] Speaker 2: him look human like, we just must assume that he
[41:23] Speaker 2: doesn't actually mean it. This is somehow him just anthropomorphizing himself,
[41:28] Speaker 2: which is not actually the case, because in the narrative
[41:31] Speaker 2: that we just read, not only is he talking about
[41:34] Speaker 2: doing a sequence of events, he does a sequence of events,
[41:37] Speaker 2: and he does so elsewhere. There's a bunch of instances
[41:40] Speaker 2: where God is finding things out or knowing things in
[41:44] Speaker 2: a sequenced event. How do you mean, like when he
[41:52] Speaker 2: has Abraham almost execute his son. All right, I'll talk
[41:57] Speaker 2: about Genesis twenty two. Right in verse in Genesis twenty two,
[42:01] Speaker 2: when he's got the dagger in the air, he's about
[42:03] Speaker 2: to stab and he gets stopped, he says, now I know. Right,
[42:08] Speaker 2: He's saying, now I have the information. He says the
[42:11] Speaker 2: same thing in Deuteronomy chapter thirteen. He's going to test
[42:14] Speaker 2: his people to know what is in their heart. He
[42:16] Speaker 2: says the same thing in Deuteronomy eighteen, before he declares
[42:21] Speaker 2: that he's going to execute everybody in Sodom and Gomorah,
[42:24] Speaker 2: he says, I must go down and see if the
[42:26] Speaker 2: outcry that has risen up to me is as what
[42:29] Speaker 2: it seems.
[42:30] Speaker 3: And then I will know.
[42:31] Speaker 2: Like God keeps employing this idea that he has information
[42:36] Speaker 2: he needs to obtain, and those are things that happens
[42:40] Speaker 2: in sequences.
[42:42] Speaker 4: Yeah, so this I don't see this as information God
[42:45] Speaker 4: needs to obtain. I see this as his interaction with humans.
[42:49] Speaker 4: I mean, that's that seems to be pretty obviously. I
[42:52] Speaker 4: don't know how because he knows. Yeah, of course, then
[42:56] Speaker 4: why does he say then I will know? Because he's
[43:00] Speaker 4: writing for humans. But he could have just said I
[43:02] Speaker 4: already see. This is the thing with communication. I'm sure
[43:06] Speaker 4: you can understand this as well. If you wanted to
[43:09] Speaker 4: communicate a very complex idea to somebody who didn't know it,
[43:13] Speaker 4: would you, I mean, you would bore people to that.
[43:16] Speaker 1: I'm sure.
[43:16] Speaker 4: I mean, I'm sure you wouldn't have many people be
[43:19] Speaker 4: hanging out. So if in the Pentateuch and these these
[43:25] Speaker 4: verses that you're you're offering here as evidence, well God
[43:28] Speaker 4: must think discursively and he changes his mind about thinking
[43:31] Speaker 4: he's very human like. Well, if if that's the case,
[43:37] Speaker 4: we can easily say that that's wrong because God has
[43:41] Speaker 4: these namely of being maybe namely, no, I'm.
[43:45] Speaker 1: Saying that's wrong.
[43:46] Speaker 4: I'm saying that interpretation is wrong, namely because we already
[43:50] Speaker 4: know that God is the creator of the universe, and
[43:52] Speaker 4: that we don't know that is absolutely being within the
[43:55] Speaker 4: Christian world. But just what the world where you're attacking
[43:58] Speaker 4: is correct.
[43:58] Speaker 2: So this is my favorite thing about talking to philosophers,
[44:02] Speaker 2: is the God that you've dreamed up through some philosophy
[44:05] Speaker 2: is not the God of the Bible. The God of
[44:06] Speaker 2: the Bible doesn't know everything. The God of the Bible
[44:09] Speaker 2: does change his mind. Do you want to see exactly where.
[44:14] Speaker 1: Go for it?
[44:15] Speaker 2: Okay, we're going to go to Exus thirty two. He
[44:18] Speaker 2: clearly states it clearly states that he changed his mind.
[44:22] Speaker 2: This is after the Golden Calf incident. Right, give me
[44:26] Speaker 2: one second to grab the passage. Although I think in
[44:29] Speaker 2: the King James it says repented, but it's the same
[44:31] Speaker 2: word in Hebrew. Okay, So if you go to Exus
[44:36] Speaker 2: thirty two forty two, chapter twelve or verse twelve thirty
[44:40] Speaker 2: two fourteen, right, he's yeah, twelve twelve to fourteen is
[44:46] Speaker 2: kind of the same situation.
[44:48] Speaker 1: Alright.
[44:48] Speaker 2: He says he's going to wipe out all these Israelites
[44:50] Speaker 2: because they've acted wickedly. And then it says the Lord
[44:54] Speaker 2: changed his mind about the disaster that he planned to
[44:57] Speaker 2: bring on his people. So he does change his mind, right,
[45:03] Speaker 2: So I don't see a problem here.
[45:05] Speaker 3: Well, kenon all he changes mind.
[45:07] Speaker 4: What let me ask you this, because the the initial
[45:11] Speaker 4: question in our conversation that you begin with is what's
[45:16] Speaker 4: your most compelling evidence for God's existence or for your
[45:19] Speaker 4: God or what have you. I don't take this problematic
[45:24] Speaker 4: interpretation is evidence that God does not.
[45:27] Speaker 2: Exist no, no, I'm not saying that there's no inference there whatsoever.
[45:31] Speaker 2: I'm not saying this true God exists. I'm saying this
[45:34] Speaker 2: proves that the God you think of is not the
[45:37] Speaker 2: God of the book. The God the book changes his mind,
[45:39] Speaker 2: he says, he changes his mind.
[45:41] Speaker 4: I don't think it does. I don't think it does.
[45:43] Speaker 4: There's ways to synthesize what's being said here with what
[45:47] Speaker 4: theologians have said about God.
[45:49] Speaker 2: I know what he says, and I verse fourteen read
[45:52] Speaker 2: it out loud. I do know this, which is why
[45:54] Speaker 2: I know that that you're wrong. Verse fourteen says, yahweh
[45:59] Speaker 2: changed his mind about the disaster? Did he change his mind?
[46:02] Speaker 2: Or did he not?
[46:06] Speaker 4: So that's anthropomorphic language. I mean, why say this? So
[46:09] Speaker 4: he can let me the question why say that? I
[46:13] Speaker 4: am answering the question why say that? Right here? That
[46:16] Speaker 4: means literal he changed his mind, But when he walked
[46:18] Speaker 4: in the garden, that's not literal.
[46:20] Speaker 2: Well again, I think he did walk in the garden.
[46:23] Speaker 2: He does the same thing in Deuteronomy. He does the
[46:26] Speaker 2: same thing in Deuteronomy thirty two. So there's actually a
[46:29] Speaker 2: good scholarship on this. I would recommend reading when God's
[46:32] Speaker 2: were men by Professor ester Hamori.
[46:38] Speaker 4: So this makes God into just sort of an anthropomorphic
[46:41] Speaker 4: kind of member of a polytheistic antheon or something, and
[46:45] Speaker 4: something like the Greek gods or something in a very
[46:47] Speaker 4: human life.
[46:48] Speaker 2: The ancient convention of God in the ancient Near East
[46:51] Speaker 2: and even in the Mediterranean, where that they were somewhat
[46:54] Speaker 2: like superheroes. They ate and they drank. In fact, in Exodus,
[46:58] Speaker 2: the same book we were just reading, in chapter twenty four,
[47:02] Speaker 2: God's on a mountain and they see his feet, they
[47:06] Speaker 2: behold a vision of God and they're up there having
[47:09] Speaker 2: a meal with them. And then in Genesis he eats
[47:13] Speaker 2: in Genesis eighteen.
[47:15] Speaker 4: Okay, let me point you to I'm not trying to
[47:18] Speaker 4: be a jerk about this, but if we want to
[47:20] Speaker 4: get the God of the Bible, we have to take
[47:22] Speaker 4: the whole Bible into account. Genie, when God created everything,
[47:27] Speaker 4: God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was
[47:29] Speaker 4: without form, without shape, darkness over the void, over the abyss,
[47:33] Speaker 4: and mighty wind sweeping over the waters. And God let
[47:35] Speaker 4: it said, let.
[47:35] Speaker 1: There be life.
[47:36] Speaker 4: That doesn't sound human to me. So if these authors
[47:38] Speaker 4: are saying human, God was just a human made into
[47:42] Speaker 4: a god that seems to ignore the entire genesis one account.
[47:47] Speaker 3: That's why, first of all, it doesn't.
[47:49] Speaker 2: Second all, that's not what I said and say Jesus
[47:51] Speaker 2: or God was a human, although Jesus was a human, saying,
[47:54] Speaker 2: the God of the ancient Earist or the gods in
[47:57] Speaker 2: the ancient ear East, were more human like than the
[48:00] Speaker 2: gods of philosophy. They could eat, they could drink, they
[48:03] Speaker 2: had anatomical appendages, they could speak, they could hear, they
[48:10] Speaker 2: had the physical capabilities of doing such things. When God
[48:13] Speaker 2: gets mad in Hebrew literally talks about his nose is
[48:17] Speaker 2: off his hot nose, because the idiom for being mad
[48:22] Speaker 2: is that you got a hot nose. Right, So, all
[48:24] Speaker 2: the language we have about God in the Bible is
[48:27] Speaker 2: that he's got these physical characteristics, which is why, interestingly enough,
[48:30] Speaker 2: when he creates mankind, mankind is created in the image
[48:35] Speaker 2: the likeness of God. And this is the exact same
[48:38] Speaker 2: bribage that's used for all of Adam's descendants. Adam had
[48:42] Speaker 2: sons in his likeness, meaning they have a physical representation
[48:48] Speaker 2: that is like their maker.
[48:56] Speaker 4: I'm just waiting for the conclusion that the efforts to
[48:59] Speaker 4: the conclusion that God does not exist like absolutely, it's
[49:02] Speaker 4: not the creator of the universe.
[49:05] Speaker 2: That not my argument at all. My argument is the
[49:07] Speaker 2: God you believe in is not the God of the Bible.
[49:09] Speaker 2: The God of philosophy and the God of Christianity are
[49:12] Speaker 2: two different things.
[49:14] Speaker 4: I never said that I agree with the God of philosophy,
[49:17] Speaker 4: the classic philosophers, the God of classical theism.
[49:20] Speaker 1: I never said that.
[49:21] Speaker 2: Right.
[49:22] Speaker 4: In fact, if you remember, I said I believe in
[49:25] Speaker 4: the God is understood by Catholic theology.
[49:27] Speaker 1: I'm Catholic. I said that at the very beginning.
[49:31] Speaker 2: And again my argument is about the Christian God, right
[49:34] Speaker 2: or Catholic God for your sake, and what I'm suggesting
[49:38] Speaker 2: that the way the Catholic God is described in the
[49:41] Speaker 2: Bible is not the same God you're describing through philosophy.
[49:45] Speaker 2: They're different things.
[49:47] Speaker 4: I would beg to differ because there's entire if we're
[49:50] Speaker 4: looking at the Catholic God and Catholic theology, there's an
[49:52] Speaker 4: entire tradition which, as I was mentioning and gestured at earlier,
[49:57] Speaker 4: that unpacks what these verses mean.
[50:00] Speaker 1: Right.
[50:00] Speaker 4: This is why we have even culture, even textual analysis,
[50:05] Speaker 4: that we can say, oh, that means idiom oh, this
[50:07] Speaker 4: is apocalyptic literature or what not, So that that all
[50:10] Speaker 4: came out of this textual analysis. And I don't think
[50:14] Speaker 4: of thermaneutics an interpretation.
[50:16] Speaker 2: I've read the Church Fathers. They can't agree on what
[50:18] Speaker 2: I have these text to me neither. They can't even
[50:21] Speaker 2: agree on whether or not Hell is eternal or whether
[50:23] Speaker 2: or not it's just annihilation.
[50:25] Speaker 3: They're split right down the.
[50:26] Speaker 4: Middle, right, they have disagreements. Yeah, I don't see why that.
[50:33] Speaker 4: I don't see how that undermines what my claim was, so,
[50:38] Speaker 4: which was my point is laid the foundation to interpret
[50:41] Speaker 4: these these things like that doesn't undermine that.
[50:44] Speaker 2: You say they like they're a cohesive bunch, like they
[50:46] Speaker 2: came together and they agreed on an appropriate interpretation of
[50:50] Speaker 2: say Exus thirty two fourteen. They didn't. They did no
[50:52] Speaker 2: such thing.
[50:53] Speaker 1: I'm not suggesting they all agreed, Okay.
[50:55] Speaker 4: I suggest that you like the ones that agree with you,
[50:58] Speaker 4: the Elogians. I'm suggesting that is a very conservative claim
[51:05] Speaker 4: here that I'm suggesting theologians early church fathers, which you
[51:09] Speaker 4: used as a collective term, so I think I'm entitled
[51:11] Speaker 4: to use as a collective Church fathers. They disagree with
[51:14] Speaker 4: one another. Sure, they laid the foundation for interpreting the Bible.
[51:17] Speaker 4: That's all I'm saying. It's very conservative claim. I neverness
[51:20] Speaker 4: never said that they all agreed with each other.
[51:22] Speaker 3: But they didn't lay the foundation.
[51:23] Speaker 2: If they can't agree on what it means, what they've
[51:25] Speaker 2: done is giving. They give us differing opinions, just like
[51:28] Speaker 2: the Jewish rabbis intellmid. The Jewish rabbis in the Talmud
[51:31] Speaker 2: argue with each other all the time. They didn't lay
[51:34] Speaker 2: the foundation for what the correct interpretation of all the
[51:37] Speaker 2: passages are. They laid the foundation of that either or
[51:40] Speaker 2: here are possible ways to interpret the passage.
[51:43] Speaker 4: That's what I was getting at. I never said that
[51:45] Speaker 4: they laid the foundation for the correct interpretation. I mean,
[51:48] Speaker 4: I think that's true. But my claim was that they
[51:51] Speaker 4: laid the foundation for interpreting these scriptures. That's all I said.
[51:55] Speaker 4: It's a very conservative claim. I don't know why you're
[51:56] Speaker 4: disagreeing with it.
[51:58] Speaker 2: Well, I don't think. I think you and I were
[52:01] Speaker 2: making two different claims. Your claim sounded like the interpretation
[52:05] Speaker 2: given by the Church Fathers should be accepted because it's true,
[52:09] Speaker 2: and I'm saying I don't have a good reason to
[52:11] Speaker 2: accept further claim.
[52:12] Speaker 4: And I think that's a further claim, and I think
[52:14] Speaker 4: that you were anticipating that, and I endorse that. So yeah,
[52:17] Speaker 4: I think that there are certain interpretations that are correct.
[52:22] Speaker 3: And I don't.
[52:23] Speaker 2: So I'm sure they get some stuff right and some
[52:26] Speaker 2: stuff wrong, like every human right. When it comes to
[52:28] Speaker 2: Access thirty two and the other passages where God clearly
[52:32] Speaker 2: changes his mind, I have no reason to believe that
[52:34] Speaker 2: it means anything other than God changed his mind, because
[52:38] Speaker 2: I've studied the ancient Near East, and the gods changed
[52:41] Speaker 2: their mind all the time.
[52:43] Speaker 4: Okay, yeah, So this is where I am saying that
[52:50] Speaker 4: we do not read the text literally in certain points.
[52:55] Speaker 1: And I know when right.
[52:57] Speaker 4: So we are given that guidance by theologians who came
[53:02] Speaker 4: before us.
[53:03] Speaker 1: Oh and so.
[53:04] Speaker 2: Okay, so when Moses went down from my mountain region literally,
[53:07] Speaker 2: when Moses went down from the mountain in verse fifteen,
[53:10] Speaker 2: he literally went down from the mountain or did he
[53:12] Speaker 2: metaphorically go down from a mountain?
[53:15] Speaker 1: He literally came down there to see.
[53:16] Speaker 4: That would be a really easy what's your point?
[53:20] Speaker 2: In verse thirteen, the verse before it, when it says,
[53:22] Speaker 2: remember Abraham Isaac and Israel, your servants. How you swore
[53:26] Speaker 2: to them by your own self, saying that I will
[53:28] Speaker 2: multiply your descendants like the stars of the heaven and
[53:31] Speaker 2: all this land. I have promised, I will give your
[53:33] Speaker 2: descendants and they will inherit it forever. That's not metaphor,
[53:37] Speaker 2: that's literal, right, Yeah, okay, it's just that one verse
[53:42] Speaker 2: where it says that the Lord changed his mind. Now
[53:45] Speaker 2: we have to take that as non literal.
[53:49] Speaker 1: Sure, why yeah?
[53:51] Speaker 4: Because of other things we know about God's name?
[53:53] Speaker 1: What that he's not human?
[53:57] Speaker 2: I never said he was human?
[54:01] Speaker 1: Are you sure you didn't say that?
[54:02] Speaker 4: Could you remind me of what the claim was, because
[54:04] Speaker 4: you were suggesting something about ancient eary claim is that
[54:07] Speaker 4: and that the God of the Bible is very humanlike
[54:09] Speaker 4: and unlike the God of the philosophers.
[54:11] Speaker 2: So the God of the Bible is not an immaterial, spaceless,
[54:15] Speaker 2: timeless deity.
[54:18] Speaker 1: So how do you arrive at that?
[54:20] Speaker 4: If, like I said in Genesis one, God created all
[54:25] Speaker 4: of space and time and you know, and matters, so
[54:28] Speaker 4: like he didn't didn't think that was it? It did say,
[54:34] Speaker 4: certainly did not created. The God created the heavens and
[54:37] Speaker 4: the earth.
[54:38] Speaker 2: The sky, and the land. Yeah, Hasha, Miami, and Hebrew
[54:41] Speaker 2: just refers to the skies. Okay, there's no concept of
[54:47] Speaker 2: this celestial heaven far away from the earth. In ancient
[54:50] Speaker 2: Near East, during cosmology or even in the Bible, the
[54:53] Speaker 2: sky is always the literal place where the clouds are,
[54:57] Speaker 2: just above the earth, where God resides, in fact his
[55:00] Speaker 2: throne according to Psalm, just at the top of the firmament.
[55:04] Speaker 4: What do you think the God of the Bible is then, like,
[55:08] Speaker 4: in terms of if he's not immaterial, but that he
[55:12] Speaker 4: created the heavens in the earth, is he some sort
[55:14] Speaker 4: of demi god.
[55:16] Speaker 2: Well, again, you're assuming that there was nothing outside of
[55:19] Speaker 2: the heaven's zone.
[55:20] Speaker 4: I'm not assuming anything. I'm asking a question.
[55:22] Speaker 2: So I would classify him as more in line with
[55:25] Speaker 2: an ancient Near Eastern deity or even a Greek deity. Now,
[55:28] Speaker 2: I believe that it's better to think of him like
[55:31] Speaker 2: an ancient Near Eastern deity that has both a spiritual
[55:34] Speaker 2: and a physical presence. The spiritual presence can do some
[55:38] Speaker 2: things that the physical presence can't. So, for example, if
[55:41] Speaker 2: you read in the Hittite literature, there is an incantation
[55:44] Speaker 2: for performing the duties when you put up a new
[55:47] Speaker 2: temple for the Goddess of the Night, and the Goddess
[55:50] Speaker 2: of the Knight has an actual physical manifestation in the literature,
[55:54] Speaker 2: but she can actually dwell in two different temples at
[55:58] Speaker 2: once because her spirit can dwell in one place and
[56:01] Speaker 2: in another place at the same time, even though she
[56:03] Speaker 2: has a physical manifestation the same way.
[56:06] Speaker 3: Probably early people thought about.
[56:08] Speaker 2: Jesus and the bother he could manifest in multiple physical
[56:13] Speaker 2: realities and multiple spiritual realities because he's like a superhuman
[56:18] Speaker 2: more super than less human.
[56:22] Speaker 1: Okay, so okay, So I don't have anything to reply
[56:31] Speaker 1: to that, but it's just good to know.
[56:32] Speaker 2: Right, But my interpretation I can match up with everything
[56:37] Speaker 2: the Bible says about God.
[56:38] Speaker 1: Right.
[56:38] Speaker 3: The idea that God.
[56:39] Speaker 2: Is a spaceless, timeless, immaterial entity is not found in
[56:44] Speaker 2: the Bible.
[56:44] Speaker 1: Right.
[56:45] Speaker 2: You have to intuit that from philosophy, and then isa
[56:48] Speaker 2: Jesus that into the Bible. It's not is of Jesus,
[56:52] Speaker 2: it's exa Jesus. And then show me the passage where
[56:55] Speaker 2: it says that, I mean, I can show you some
[56:59] Speaker 2: ex for to know this a lot better than I
[57:01] Speaker 2: do and you but I've studied with I'm not an
[57:04] Speaker 2: expert in this exp I'm not an expert in this area.
[57:06] Speaker 2: I can appeal to the experts I can. I can
[57:09] Speaker 2: tell you my old Testament professors who agree with me.
[57:12] Speaker 4: I studied with experts as well. I know you did
[57:14] Speaker 4: a seminary. I've got a seminary degree as well. But
[57:16] Speaker 4: I don't I don't wave it around like you've You've
[57:19] Speaker 4: mentioned half a dozen times that you've you've studied with
[57:23] Speaker 4: or you've read this, or you've read that. I'm not
[57:25] Speaker 4: going to say that. I'm just going to stick to
[57:27] Speaker 4: the what we can talk about right now, because that's irrelevant.
[57:32] Speaker 1: Handled it. If you aund to talk about this.
[57:36] Speaker 4: I'm not an expert in this area, and so I'd
[57:39] Speaker 4: like to get back if you, if you like, with
[57:42] Speaker 4: your permission, to the initial conversation that I'm still not
[57:46] Speaker 4: a specialist in but I have a lot more understanding
[57:50] Speaker 4: and and uh expertise in the area of philosophy religion.
[57:54] Speaker 4: I don't have I said this into in the email
[57:57] Speaker 4: as well as I said before. I said, look, I'm
[58:01] Speaker 4: not an ancient Near East I said this literally. I'm
[58:03] Speaker 4: not an ancient Near East expert. So I know that
[58:07] Speaker 4: the conversation. Of course, naturally goes here, and that's your
[58:09] Speaker 4: background a little bit, so you would naturally go there.
[58:12] Speaker 4: But just to flag that for anybody watching this, I'm
[58:15] Speaker 4: not an expert in this area and I'm not here
[58:17] Speaker 4: to talk about ancient eery stuff. If you want to
[58:19] Speaker 4: do that, talk to somebody else, maybe wes huff I
[58:22] Speaker 4: saw somebody in the chat asking you to get wes
[58:24] Speaker 4: huff on. I think that'd be delightful to see that.
[58:26] Speaker 4: I would tune in for that. But I'm not the
[58:28] Speaker 4: person to talk about ancient Near East stuff, fair enough.
[58:35] Speaker 3: But you are comfortable talking about the Bible, right.
[58:40] Speaker 4: And yeah, it depends on what I mean. Yeah, I
[58:44] Speaker 4: took Bible just like you did. I mean, anybody, it's
[58:48] Speaker 4: publicly available information. If you want to go look me
[58:51] Speaker 4: up and look at my CV anyway available online. You
[58:53] Speaker 4: can see all the courses I took. So that mean
[58:56] Speaker 4: that I'm an expert on those subject matters. Just because
[58:58] Speaker 4: I took graduate seminars and Testament, Old Testament, Hermiduticts and
[59:01] Speaker 4: so on, I'm not doesn't make me an expert, right,
[59:06] Speaker 4: So I'm conversational about these things, but I'm not necessarily
[59:11] Speaker 4: going to be able to tell you all the literature
[59:14] Speaker 4: around this, like you're citing certain experts, I would have
[59:18] Speaker 4: to kind of go back to my own notes and
[59:21] Speaker 4: figure out who actually writes some things that come to mind,
[59:24] Speaker 4: Probably somebody like Bruce Metzger or Ben Weatherington, but those
[59:28] Speaker 4: I don't know who's publishing.
[59:29] Speaker 1: Now I mentioned wes.
[59:30] Speaker 4: Hoff, Benz's probably not publishing anymore, probably not right. So
[59:35] Speaker 4: I know I know some of these names, but again,
[59:38] Speaker 4: I'm only barely conversational about this. I can speak with
[59:41] Speaker 4: a non expert, but I'm not going to be able
[59:43] Speaker 4: to have a sustained conversation about these things fair enough.
[59:49] Speaker 2: All right, So I think we were as far as
[59:51] Speaker 2: I can tell, we're still stalled out on premise number
[59:54] Speaker 2: one of the cosmological argument.
[59:58] Speaker 4: Yeah, so what got us into discussing Genesis? And well,
[1:00:05] Speaker 4: I think it was Exodus anyway, what God is discussing
[1:00:07] Speaker 4: that you brought up the idea that God changes his
[1:00:11] Speaker 4: mind and you thought that this was evidence for discursive reasoning.
[1:00:15] Speaker 4: I understand that that's understandable, and you've got your reasons
[1:00:18] Speaker 4: to think that God can think discursively. But back to
[1:00:24] Speaker 4: what I'm coming from from a Catholic philosopher or background.
[1:00:29] Speaker 4: God has no discursive reasoning in his mind. He is
[1:00:33] Speaker 4: pure actuality. This is what I mentioned before, and that
[1:00:38] Speaker 4: if those things are expressed in writing those I would
[1:00:42] Speaker 4: chalk those up to just being you know, here are
[1:00:45] Speaker 4: the consequences that we're laying out because you are human
[1:00:48] Speaker 4: and your free will took this certain route, or it
[1:00:52] Speaker 4: would be in the manner of translating into human words
[1:00:56] Speaker 4: that they can understand that. Well, God changed his mind
[1:00:59] Speaker 4: in a sense to mean, well, you can't understand pure actuality.
[1:01:02] Speaker 4: We're not going to get into that in Exodus of
[1:01:04] Speaker 4: these chapters. That's not with the point. So we'll just
[1:01:07] Speaker 4: very simplistically right, God changed his mind. So could he
[1:01:12] Speaker 4: have just got us? Could he not said anything?
[1:01:15] Speaker 2: If God didn't change his mind, you don't have You
[1:01:19] Speaker 2: don't have to say anything. You can just say, you know,
[1:01:22] Speaker 2: God dealt with them as he saw fit by being
[1:01:25] Speaker 2: a boy a boom. It's done.
[1:01:27] Speaker 4: Yeah, given the the extreme event of commanding Abraham to
[1:01:35] Speaker 4: sacrifice his son in all future generations, you know, he
[1:01:38] Speaker 4: had when he was one hundred or something, giving that
[1:01:42] Speaker 4: the stakes of that to say nothing, to provide no
[1:01:48] Speaker 4: explanation whatsoever. I think would be severely lacking. It would
[1:01:52] Speaker 4: confuse a lot of people.
[1:01:53] Speaker 2: Well, you're talking about Genesis twenty two, where we're talking
[1:01:56] Speaker 2: about Exus thirty two, Genesis twenty different. Ex thirty to right,
[1:02:01] Speaker 2: We'll talking about Mos Moses, not Abraham.
[1:02:03] Speaker 1: Right. Oh, I'm sorry.
[1:02:04] Speaker 2: So in Exodus thirty two, God's about to wipe out
[1:02:07] Speaker 2: the Israelites because of Golden Calf incident, and he tells Moses, hey,
[1:02:11] Speaker 2: step aside, I'm going to wipe all these Israelites out
[1:02:13] Speaker 2: and I'm going to turn you into a nation because
[1:02:16] Speaker 2: these people are stiffnaked. And then Moses talks him off
[1:02:19] Speaker 2: the ledge. He's like, no, no, no, don't don't do this thing.
[1:02:21] Speaker 2: Think about the promises that you made. And then it
[1:02:24] Speaker 2: says God changed his mind after Moses pleaded with him
[1:02:27] Speaker 2: to change his mind. Why would Gud go through all
[1:02:31] Speaker 2: that if he didn't actually it intend to do it.
[1:02:35] Speaker 3: Because one of two things is true.
[1:02:36] Speaker 2: He said all that not intending to mean it, which
[1:02:39] Speaker 2: means he's a liar, or he legitimately changed his mind,
[1:02:43] Speaker 2: which means he changes his mind. But both of those
[1:02:45] Speaker 2: are contradictions to numbers. Twenty three nineteen I don't think so.
[1:02:49] Speaker 2: So if if a police officer says drop the weapon
[1:02:52] Speaker 2: or I'll shoot, like that is a claim I will
[1:02:56] Speaker 2: do this thing, but it's true him.
[1:03:00] Speaker 1: Yes, yeah, so then it's not a lot. And if
[1:03:04] Speaker 1: he holsters his gun because you drop the weapon, does
[1:03:07] Speaker 1: that mean that he was lying? No?
[1:03:09] Speaker 4: But God said based on your action, he responded appropriately.
[1:03:13] Speaker 2: God didn't say do this and then I'll do that.
[1:03:19] Speaker 2: He said, I have seen this people, how stiff neked
[1:03:21] Speaker 2: they are. Now let me alone, so that my wrath
[1:03:24] Speaker 2: may burn hot against them, that I might consume them,
[1:03:27] Speaker 2: and of you I will make a great nation. He
[1:03:29] Speaker 2: didn't say if they behave, if they repent, He just said,
[1:03:32] Speaker 2: move aside. I'm going to wipe these people out. And
[1:03:35] Speaker 2: then Moses says, Moses implored the Lord has God and said,
[1:03:39] Speaker 2: oh Lord, why does your wrath burn? And so he
[1:03:42] Speaker 2: talks them off the ledge. And then after Moses has done,
[1:03:44] Speaker 2: saying hey, maybe take a breather, think about this for
[1:03:48] Speaker 2: a second, then God changes his mind. Like the whole
[1:03:50] Speaker 2: story is quite quite reasonable once you understand how the
[1:03:55] Speaker 2: ancient ears during concepts of God's were. The minute you
[1:03:59] Speaker 2: try to interduce this God that doesn't actually think in time,
[1:04:03] Speaker 2: it falls apart because he either changed his mind or
[1:04:05] Speaker 2: he is a liar.
[1:04:07] Speaker 4: Right, so we're getting bogged down in scripture again. But
[1:04:09] Speaker 4: let's turn back. Let's turn So what what my expertise is,
[1:04:15] Speaker 4: and it's barely an expertise I wouldn't even cited as
[1:04:18] Speaker 4: an expertise, but philosophy of religion.
[1:04:21] Speaker 1: Let's assume, for the sake.
[1:04:23] Speaker 4: Of argument, that that that like what I'm saying that
[1:04:26] Speaker 4: the Catholic of you just is that God can't think discursively.
[1:04:29] Speaker 4: That's the claim, that's the claim. He's pure actuality. There
[1:04:33] Speaker 4: is no change in God. But why would I think that?
[1:04:35] Speaker 4: So why would you? Why would you make an assumption
[1:04:39] Speaker 4: that launch an argument?
[1:04:40] Speaker 2: No, No, I'm saying what why would I? Like? What
[1:04:43] Speaker 2: if you're if you're saying, well, listen, I have this.
[1:04:47] Speaker 2: You know, my conclusion is somewhat based on this idea
[1:04:51] Speaker 2: that God doesn't think recursively? Right, And I'm saying, I
[1:04:54] Speaker 2: I don't see a reason to believe that to be
[1:04:56] Speaker 2: the case. I'm asking you, can you support that claim
[1:04:58] Speaker 2: with something? I mean, i'd have to brush up on
[1:05:06] Speaker 2: my literature on pure actuality. I can give you recommendations.
[1:05:10] Speaker 2: You know, obviously Thomas Aquinas talks about it. There's a
[1:05:13] Speaker 2: really good book called The One and the Many by W.
[1:05:17] Speaker 2: Norris Clark, who's Jesuit author and scholar, and he does
[1:05:21] Speaker 2: he's a valuation of Tomistic metaphysics, and he gets in there.
[1:05:25] Speaker 4: And then the other Yeah, the other book I often
[1:05:28] Speaker 4: use just primary sources Aquinas and they he was exposing
[1:05:32] Speaker 4: a quintas in this terms of pure actuality. This what
[1:05:36] Speaker 4: that actually means. And as far as I understand it,
[1:05:39] Speaker 4: and it's hard to understand, but as far as I
[1:05:43] Speaker 4: understand it, that if there were potentiality in God, it
[1:05:49] Speaker 4: would impugne God's sovereignty in some way. It would make
[1:05:52] Speaker 4: it such like we were describing earlier, that God would
[1:05:55] Speaker 4: be open to changing his mind, that that would make
[1:05:58] Speaker 4: him some sort of dependent on other things. And of course,
[1:06:03] Speaker 4: if God's dependent upon creatures, then he's not sovereign over creatures,
[1:06:07] Speaker 4: hy dependent upon them.
[1:06:08] Speaker 2: Dependent on them. He's allowing himself to react to other things.
[1:06:16] Speaker 2: He didn't have to write like so in the worldview.
[1:06:19] Speaker 2: I don't know if you've spent any time looking into
[1:06:21] Speaker 2: open theism, but open theism or process theology, which is
[1:06:25] Speaker 2: like the sister of open theism, is this idea that
[1:06:29] Speaker 2: God could but just completely get rid of your free
[1:06:32] Speaker 2: will and can be one hundred percent sovereign and be
[1:06:35] Speaker 2: the cause of all things. Or God could choose to
[1:06:39] Speaker 2: limit himself the same way he limited himself when he
[1:06:41] Speaker 2: sent Jesus to the earth. He could limit himself and
[1:06:44] Speaker 2: allow humans to make their own decisions and then react
[1:06:49] Speaker 2: to those decisions. But obviously, as the name implies, process
[1:06:53] Speaker 2: theology happens as a process.
[1:06:58] Speaker 1: Yeah.
[1:06:59] Speaker 4: I took pross theology to mean that God himself is
[1:07:01] Speaker 4: a process, not a substance.
[1:07:04] Speaker 3: I'm not saying substance.
[1:07:05] Speaker 2: I'm saying that in process theology, God is in a
[1:07:08] Speaker 2: partnership sort of an agreement with mankind that he like,
[1:07:12] Speaker 2: there's an ultimate arc. You know. The Bible says in
[1:07:15] Speaker 2: Isaiah that God declares the end from the very beginning,
[1:07:18] Speaker 2: and they accept that. They say, yes, that's true. God
[1:07:20] Speaker 2: knows the ultimate endgame. But he is working in unison
[1:07:24] Speaker 2: with mankind to achieve those goals. He's not forcing those goals.
[1:07:28] Speaker 2: It's a process, right, Yeah.
[1:07:32] Speaker 4: You know, so I know this is very or at
[1:07:35] Speaker 4: least in the years I was in seminary. It was
[1:07:37] Speaker 4: very fashionable among evangelicals to to sort of explore these
[1:07:42] Speaker 4: areas with respect process theology and open theism. I've even
[1:07:45] Speaker 4: got a few books on the things and on my
[1:07:47] Speaker 4: shelf behind me. But as far as cathletes understand, I
[1:07:53] Speaker 4: believe that they think them is heresies. You can oh
[1:07:56] Speaker 4: yeah for tect me on that if I'm wrong. Theism
[1:08:00] Speaker 4: is just recycled heresy from a sixteenth century guy named Socinius.
[1:08:05] Speaker 4: So it's a view called Socinianism, and it just recycles
[1:08:09] Speaker 4: the same old idea, and of course they're going to affirm.
[1:08:12] Speaker 4: So this open theism, what it says is since the
[1:08:14] Speaker 4: future doesn't exist, then God does have omniscience. It's just
[1:08:20] Speaker 4: that his omniscience is limited in the same way omnipotence.
[1:08:24] Speaker 1: Right.
[1:08:24] Speaker 4: Omnipotence is limited in the sense that God's omnipotent, but
[1:08:29] Speaker 4: he's only all powerful in the sense that he can
[1:08:33] Speaker 4: only do the things that are logically possible to do omniscience.
[1:08:36] Speaker 4: So he can't lift like a rock that you know,
[1:08:39] Speaker 4: he can't create a rock that's too heavy for him
[1:08:40] Speaker 4: to lift because that's just logically impossible, and can't create
[1:08:42] Speaker 4: a Squirrell circle. That's logically impossible.
[1:08:45] Speaker 2: But well, I had a question, and I think you're
[1:08:47] Speaker 2: the right person for this, which is why can't God
[1:08:50] Speaker 2: do logical impossibilities?
[1:08:54] Speaker 4: Because a metaphysical possibility is dependent upon logical possibilities. So
[1:08:59] Speaker 4: something that's logically impossible, it's not metaphysically impossible to godally
[1:09:02] Speaker 4: logically possible, not it. It's a weird thing because it's
[1:09:08] Speaker 4: it's odd to say God created logic. God is logic
[1:09:12] Speaker 4: himself in the sense of like God has reason himself,
[1:09:14] Speaker 4: He's ultimate rationality, So logic it would just be in
[1:09:18] Speaker 4: his character. It's the same thing with goodness. God's identified
[1:09:21] Speaker 4: with the good and so he couldn't do things that
[1:09:23] Speaker 4: are contrary to his nature.
[1:09:25] Speaker 2: So God is uh, his nature is that he does
[1:09:31] Speaker 2: things that are logical. Right, And you're suggesting that because
[1:09:34] Speaker 2: he has a particular nature, logic exists. It's like a
[1:09:38] Speaker 2: manifestation of his nature. Right, What does that even mean?
[1:09:41] Speaker 2: How does how does the nature manifest?
[1:09:46] Speaker 1: Right?
[1:09:46] Speaker 4: My nature manifests in the ways I express to other people, right, Right?
[1:09:51] Speaker 4: But of course God's God's going to be unique in
[1:09:54] Speaker 4: the sense that when he expresses his nature, it's going
[1:09:56] Speaker 4: to have a lot more authority than you know, a
[1:09:59] Speaker 4: lot more implication for other people, you know. So I
[1:10:01] Speaker 4: liken it to a very fashionable view these days with
[1:10:04] Speaker 4: respect to uh, the simulation theory. Right, So many people
[1:10:10] Speaker 4: like to think about this.
[1:10:11] Speaker 1: I don't.
[1:10:11] Speaker 4: I don't think it's true, but it's it's a fun
[1:10:13] Speaker 4: puzzle to think about supposed to as a simulator, a
[1:10:16] Speaker 4: designer this thing we're all of living in a simulation.
[1:10:19] Speaker 4: If that guy decides to do things or have purpose
[1:10:24] Speaker 4: for the simulation, like I can think about whatever purpose
[1:10:27] Speaker 4: I like, but it's ultimately going to been on what
[1:10:29] Speaker 4: whatever the designer of the simulation design for me. Same
[1:10:33] Speaker 4: thing with like if he wants to express certain things,
[1:10:35] Speaker 4: Like I can express things all I want with the
[1:10:37] Speaker 4: limitations that I have that I've been designed for.
[1:10:40] Speaker 1: But if that guy.
[1:10:41] Speaker 4: Wants to express something about himself to you know, it's
[1:10:47] Speaker 4: gonna look different, does.
[1:10:50] Speaker 1: It?
[1:10:54] Speaker 2: What do you mean? Can can God control like I
[1:10:57] Speaker 2: can't control my own nature, Like I can't control the
[1:11:00] Speaker 2: act that I have a brain that thinks, like that's
[1:11:02] Speaker 2: just part of being a human, right. But if God
[1:11:05] Speaker 2: is all powerful, I would imagine that he has control
[1:11:07] Speaker 2: over his own nature.
[1:11:08] Speaker 4: Like he can decide what his nature actually is. Yeah,
[1:11:14] Speaker 4: so control. I So control is meant in a couple
[1:11:20] Speaker 4: of ways. So control if it's like static control, the
[1:11:22] Speaker 4: idea that I just want to control it or like
[1:11:24] Speaker 4: govern it, or just have control over something. Management in
[1:11:28] Speaker 4: other words, Uh sure, yeah, yeah, he has that. But
[1:11:31] Speaker 4: control for the sake of changing something, well, no, he's
[1:11:36] Speaker 4: not going to be able to change his nature because
[1:11:37] Speaker 4: he's unchangeable.
[1:11:39] Speaker 2: So then he's not all powerful if he can't do
[1:11:41] Speaker 2: something this is definitionly true. He can't do something that's
[1:11:47] Speaker 2: logically impossible to do, right, But if he has control
[1:11:49] Speaker 2: over logic, that means and if he can't change logic,
[1:11:53] Speaker 2: that means he's bound by it. So if he's bound
[1:11:56] Speaker 2: by his own nature, that means he's just not all powerful,
[1:11:58] Speaker 2: he's like mostly powerful.
[1:12:02] Speaker 1: I'm sorry, I don't see the problem.
[1:12:05] Speaker 2: The problem is definitions, right, there's no exceptions to the
[1:12:07] Speaker 2: word all I'm sorry, Can you repeat what you think
[1:12:15] Speaker 2: The problem is the problem is that like definitions in
[1:12:20] Speaker 2: English have like definitive meanings, Like when we say something
[1:12:23] Speaker 2: is all encompassing, like all powerful, that just means that
[1:12:26] Speaker 2: there's nothing he can't do. Now you're saying, well, the
[1:12:28] Speaker 2: reason why he can't do logical impossibilities is because somehow
[1:12:31] Speaker 2: it's a fundamental manifestation of his nature, which I didn't
[1:12:34] Speaker 2: put the burden on you to prove, not that you couldn't.
[1:12:37] Speaker 3: I'm sure you have an argument for it.
[1:12:39] Speaker 2: What I'm suggesting, though, is that, Okay, let's call it
[1:12:41] Speaker 2: part of his nature. Okay, Well, does God not have
[1:12:44] Speaker 2: control over his own nature? And if God doesn't have
[1:12:46] Speaker 2: control over his own nature, then that's just one more
[1:12:48] Speaker 2: thing he can't do.
[1:12:51] Speaker 4: Yeah, so he can't do things that are logically impossible.
[1:12:53] Speaker 4: I think that we just keep coming back to that. So, right,
[1:12:58] Speaker 4: because he can't control his nature. He is in control
[1:13:03] Speaker 4: of his nature, but he can't change his nature because
[1:13:05] Speaker 4: he's unchangeable.
[1:13:06] Speaker 1: Is if he.
[1:13:07] Speaker 2: Can't change what he is nature, then he can't do
[1:13:10] Speaker 2: something definitionly true.
[1:13:13] Speaker 4: It's just like saying that, you know, since God's immaterial,
[1:13:16] Speaker 4: if he can't be material, then he's not all powerful.
[1:13:19] Speaker 4: That seems a really odd I don't.
[1:13:21] Speaker 2: Think material has anything to do with power. I mean, theoretically,
[1:13:25] Speaker 2: if you're all powerful, whatever manifest materially, whatever God's attribute
[1:13:30] Speaker 2: might be right. So, if God's divine, if he can't
[1:13:34] Speaker 2: be not divine, then he's not all powerful. That seems
[1:13:36] Speaker 2: a really silly cut a way of arguing. In my view,
[1:13:39] Speaker 2: that's not my claim. My claim is just pure definition
[1:13:43] Speaker 2: of words.
[1:13:43] Speaker 1: Right.
[1:13:44] Speaker 2: You believe in God that's all powerful, but you keep
[1:13:46] Speaker 2: telling me there are things that he can't do. You
[1:13:48] Speaker 2: keep telling me that he's all knowing, but the Bible
[1:13:51] Speaker 2: says there are things he doesn't know. So, like, I mean,
[1:13:55] Speaker 2: I appreciate that you have this concept of God. I've
[1:13:57] Speaker 2: heard it many times on this stream from other philosophers.
[1:14:01] Speaker 2: I just to me, it's a nonsensical view. If God
[1:14:04] Speaker 2: is the creator of all things, that means there's not
[1:14:07] Speaker 2: one thing he didn't create. And if he has control
[1:14:10] Speaker 2: over all things, that includes himself. And so if he
[1:14:14] Speaker 2: doesn't have control over his own nature, then we can't
[1:14:18] Speaker 2: say that he is in control of all things. We
[1:14:20] Speaker 2: can say he's in control of most things. Must acknowledge
[1:14:25] Speaker 2: that he has control over his own nature in the
[1:14:27] Speaker 2: sense of control, authority over his own nature, grasp of
[1:14:31] Speaker 2: his own nature, management of his own nature. Can he
[1:14:34] Speaker 2: if you want to talk about, yeah, that's the thing.
[1:14:36] Speaker 2: He doesn't have control in the sense of being able
[1:14:39] Speaker 2: to change.
[1:14:40] Speaker 3: Is it's something he lacks. It's a power he lacked.
[1:14:43] Speaker 4: Right, So when I say this is, you know, with
[1:14:46] Speaker 4: all due respect, I think it's not a good argument because,
[1:14:49] Speaker 4: like I say, you know, God also can't commit acts
[1:14:52] Speaker 4: of evil? Does that mean that that makes him less powerful?
[1:14:57] Speaker 4: He didn't do that. He's all good in the Bible,
[1:14:59] Speaker 4: is all good. Let's just okay, I'm not getting into
[1:15:02] Speaker 4: the Bible. Let's assume, like not that I won't, but
[1:15:06] Speaker 4: I didn't prepare for that.
[1:15:07] Speaker 2: But they're just like keep trying to tell you, like
[1:15:09] Speaker 2: the God you believe in philosophy is not the god
[1:15:12] Speaker 2: the argument.
[1:15:13] Speaker 4: Let's just stick to the argument, right, Let's try.
[1:15:15] Speaker 2: To be I think we've lost our part, our point
[1:15:21] Speaker 2: in the argument. I I don't know what part we're
[1:15:23] Speaker 2: at anymore in the argument. We got rabbit trailed. Well,
[1:15:27] Speaker 2: it's a god's attribute. So you said that since God
[1:15:29] Speaker 2: doesn't have control over his ability to change his own nature,
[1:15:33] Speaker 2: then somehow that makes God not as powerful or he's
[1:15:36] Speaker 2: just not all powerful. That I think this is a
[1:15:39] Speaker 2: silly argument, Like I said, So suppose as Christians claim
[1:15:43] Speaker 2: that God is omni benevolent, he's all good for someone
[1:15:48] Speaker 2: to criticize that and say, well, he can't commit evil,
[1:15:50] Speaker 2: so he must not be all powerful. Like that seems
[1:15:53] Speaker 2: a very odd way of you. I don't think it's
[1:15:55] Speaker 2: a very good argument at all. No, it's just doesn't
[1:15:57] Speaker 2: impune God's power if he's not able to do so,
[1:16:00] Speaker 2: it's definitionally true, is my argument. I'm not impugning God.
[1:16:04] Speaker 2: I'm saying that if he can't do all things, including
[1:16:08] Speaker 2: logical impossibilities, then you have to get rid of the
[1:16:12] Speaker 2: word all because all doesn't have exceptions.
[1:16:16] Speaker 4: Right, So if you want to get into definitions, there's
[1:16:19] Speaker 4: not just one kind of definition. In fact, I mean
[1:16:23] Speaker 4: I looked this up earlier in the Logic book because
[1:16:25] Speaker 4: I was applying to a comment on my channel. This
[1:16:26] Speaker 4: seems to be like a common thing. It's like, well,
[1:16:29] Speaker 4: just think about the dictionary definition like like this, this
[1:16:32] Speaker 4: eats me up as a as a teacher. Like it's like,
[1:16:35] Speaker 4: you know, if anybody starts out, for example, I'm not
[1:16:37] Speaker 4: saying you're doing this, but everybody starts out in essay,
[1:16:39] Speaker 4: it's like the dictionary dictionary dot Com says, you know,
[1:16:42] Speaker 4: It's like it's like no, no, no, no no, because dictionary
[1:16:44] Speaker 4: definition is only one kind of definition. So what's the
[1:16:47] Speaker 4: alternative definition of the word all we have? Let me
[1:16:51] Speaker 4: just run through what kinds of definitions there are. So
[1:16:55] Speaker 4: we have extensional definitions, which you can have like a
[1:16:58] Speaker 4: picking out that kind of definition like this means. It's
[1:17:01] Speaker 4: like so if I have an orange, for example, and
[1:17:03] Speaker 4: you ask me what's an orange, I just show you
[1:17:06] Speaker 4: this is an orange. Right, that would be a definition.
[1:17:08] Speaker 4: It's called an ostense of definition. We've got a numerative
[1:17:10] Speaker 4: definition where I just enumerate different kinds definitions by subclass.
[1:17:15] Speaker 4: And then they're intentional definitions, not intentional with the T intention,
[1:17:19] Speaker 4: but intentional with an s meanings. It's internal. So by
[1:17:23] Speaker 4: that lexical definitions fall there. That's your dictionary definitions like
[1:17:29] Speaker 4: but they're all. There are also stipulative definitions like let's suppose,
[1:17:33] Speaker 4: with the sake of argument, a gobble fart is such
[1:17:39] Speaker 4: and such, and then I just define my thing like that.
[1:17:41] Speaker 4: That'd be a stipulative definition. They're precise in definitions when
[1:17:45] Speaker 4: you have issues of vagueness like what is baldness? What
[1:17:47] Speaker 4: does it mean to have a beard? Do you have
[1:17:49] Speaker 4: a beard? Do I have a beard?
[1:17:50] Speaker 1: Right?
[1:17:51] Speaker 4: And then there are theoretical definitions with respect to the
[1:17:54] Speaker 4: necessary and sufficient conditions for whether the thing satisfies in
[1:17:56] Speaker 4: order to be that thing. So I assume when somebody says, well,
[1:18:02] Speaker 4: that's just what the definition of X means, they're referring
[1:18:06] Speaker 4: to the dictionary definition. Just this means like common social
[1:18:10] Speaker 4: understanding of what a word means of received wisdom. But
[1:18:14] Speaker 4: that's not necessarily, as any teacher of composition, certainly any
[1:18:19] Speaker 4: philosophy teacher, if a student writes, oh, Dictionary says this,
[1:18:24] Speaker 4: I mean, that's not necessarily what is the best definition? Like,
[1:18:29] Speaker 4: it's just how people talk. But let me give an example.
[1:18:31] Speaker 4: I know how definitions work.
[1:18:33] Speaker 2: I'm asking you, can you provide a definition for the
[1:18:35] Speaker 2: word all that has exceptions? I did so.
[1:18:42] Speaker 4: Omnipotence means all powerful with respect to doing all the
[1:18:48] Speaker 4: things that is possible for God to do. But omnipotence
[1:18:52] Speaker 4: logically is a different word, and again you've created an
[1:18:58] Speaker 4: exception to it. Right, I'm talking about the word all
[1:19:00] Speaker 4: or either omnipotent or all. I think we can go
[1:19:03] Speaker 4: with either one, and there is no exception to omnipotence.
[1:19:07] Speaker 4: There's no exception to the word all. It's it's every
[1:19:10] Speaker 4: part of the whole. Yeah, so no, no, no, philosophical
[1:19:17] Speaker 4: theologian thinks that all applies to all things, even.
[1:19:22] Speaker 2: If all doesn't mean all. Okay, just second, that's.
[1:19:25] Speaker 1: Why he doesn't mean omni either.
[1:19:27] Speaker 3: But that's why I'm saying it.
[1:19:28] Speaker 2: If you don't la, if you don't mean all, then
[1:19:30] Speaker 2: you have to find a different word. Like if if
[1:19:34] Speaker 2: all it all doesn't mean at all, then you needed
[1:19:37] Speaker 2: a better word. Sure, I'm open to a better word.
[1:19:40] Speaker 2: I'm not the one who stipulated the word.
[1:19:42] Speaker 1: I mean.
[1:19:43] Speaker 4: This is like calling yourself an atheist and be like, well,
[1:19:44] Speaker 4: I'm an atheist, but I'm not this kind and I'm
[1:19:46] Speaker 4: not this kind of This kind is like, well, why
[1:19:48] Speaker 4: use the word well because it has utility. Sure it
[1:19:51] Speaker 4: applies in many different respects, but maybe not in these
[1:19:55] Speaker 4: respects and these I don't see a problem with this.
[1:19:58] Speaker 2: You could say he's like maximal maximally powerful. Sure, that's fine,
[1:20:04] Speaker 2: he's most powerful.
[1:20:08] Speaker 4: I mean, yeah, I don't see why we're getting hung
[1:20:11] Speaker 4: up on this. To be honest with.
[1:20:12] Speaker 2: You, I'm not getting hung up on it. I'm just
[1:20:15] Speaker 2: letting you know that the definitions like have like meanings.
[1:20:18] Speaker 2: When we're having semantic yeah, discussions. And when you use
[1:20:22] Speaker 2: words like all and then do you say there's exceptions
[1:20:25] Speaker 2: to all, well, then all is no longer inappropriate definite, no,
[1:20:29] Speaker 2: no longer an appropriate adjective.
[1:20:33] Speaker 4: That's fine, we can change the adjective. I'm open to that.
[1:20:35] Speaker 4: I'm not the one who labeled God's attributes. I wasn't there,
[1:20:39] Speaker 4: Like what a thousand years ago these things got added,
[1:20:42] Speaker 4: So nobody asks my opinion. I'm just using the terms
[1:20:46] Speaker 4: that are standard in the literature, and I think any theologian,
[1:20:49] Speaker 4: need philosopher who uses these terms, they don't mean that
[1:20:51] Speaker 4: God can do the logically impossible. So I don't think
[1:20:54] Speaker 4: that this is a very good objection.
[1:20:56] Speaker 2: Sure, but I agree with like just basic rationality that
[1:21:04] Speaker 2: I don't see a good reason why God wouldn't be
[1:21:06] Speaker 2: able to change the laws of logic. If he's the
[1:21:08] Speaker 2: one that has talk about all things, why can't he
[1:21:12] Speaker 2: change them?
[1:21:14] Speaker 1: Because he can't change his nature?
[1:21:15] Speaker 2: Why can't.
[1:21:18] Speaker 4: Because another attribute of God is is unchangeable. I'm just
[1:21:21] Speaker 4: using this like I'm just giving you that Christians believe.
[1:21:25] Speaker 2: I know, I know what Christians believe. I'm having to
[1:21:28] Speaker 2: support the arguments, right, So why.
[1:21:31] Speaker 1: Can't God changes why God is unchangeable?
[1:21:33] Speaker 4: Yeah, because it goes back to actuality and potentiality. If
[1:21:40] Speaker 4: God has potentiality within him, that means it's possible. Like so,
[1:21:45] Speaker 4: if we think about this in terms of motion, something
[1:21:47] Speaker 4: that has potential motion and not actual motion, is that
[1:21:51] Speaker 4: something that is potential motion means it's not actually currently moving.
[1:21:55] Speaker 4: In other words, potential motion just means it's at rest,
[1:21:58] Speaker 4: it is not motion at all. So potential motion is
[1:22:01] Speaker 4: just not motion at all. So if we say that
[1:22:04] Speaker 4: God has potentiality, then that actually limits God in his
[1:22:09] Speaker 4: sovereignty and his attribute and so on. So if God
[1:22:12] Speaker 4: is pure actuality again, I mean I could give you
[1:22:15] Speaker 4: people to read on this, put it in the chat
[1:22:17] Speaker 4: if you like, or in the video description, but it's
[1:22:21] Speaker 4: w Norris Clark. I don't have it within reach. But
[1:22:25] Speaker 4: I can go back my bookshelf if you like to
[1:22:29] Speaker 4: show you what it looks like. How very easy to find?
[1:22:31] Speaker 1: Is calm?
[1:22:33] Speaker 2: Have it posted in about thirty seconds?
[1:22:35] Speaker 4: Awesome, Awesome the one in the MIDI. It's not an
[1:22:38] Speaker 4: easy read. But if you want to know more about
[1:22:41] Speaker 4: God's attributes with respect to pure actuality, why God has
[1:22:45] Speaker 4: to be unchangeable? Why God has to be, you know,
[1:22:49] Speaker 4: pure goodness, goodness itself, truth itself, beauty itself, all right there,
[1:22:55] Speaker 4: So it's it's it's not accessible because these ideas are
[1:22:58] Speaker 4: not accessible.
[1:23:00] Speaker 1: They're not.
[1:23:01] Speaker 4: But I've met people who don't like online friends who
[1:23:05] Speaker 4: don't have a doctorate, don't even have any degree in
[1:23:08] Speaker 4: philosophy whatsoever, and they're able to pick up on these things.
[1:23:11] Speaker 4: So for the people who are interested, if they read
[1:23:14] Speaker 4: around on this, there's plenty of literature on this.
[1:23:16] Speaker 2: Sure.
[1:23:17] Speaker 3: So I mean, we've been at it for about an
[1:23:19] Speaker 3: hour and a half.
[1:23:19] Speaker 2: We should probably try to progress our conversation as much
[1:23:23] Speaker 2: as possible so we don't lose the entire audience. Where
[1:23:27] Speaker 2: where did we leave off in the actual point of discussion?
[1:23:30] Speaker 2: Somehow we started the cosmological argument and we got we
[1:23:35] Speaker 2: got lost in the middle of it.
[1:23:38] Speaker 1: Yeah, so I don't even think we were in the middle.
[1:23:42] Speaker 2: I don't think we were either. Yeah, there is somewhere
[1:23:44] Speaker 2: in the beginning.
[1:23:47] Speaker 1: You know. I suppose I could share screen on this,
[1:23:51] Speaker 1: couldn't I.
[1:23:51] Speaker 2: I think you can. I don't know if anyone can
[1:23:53] Speaker 2: see it, but we'll see what happens when we try it.
[1:23:57] Speaker 3: I mean, I can probably manipulate it.
[1:24:01] Speaker 4: No, that's the argument that I'm let me see if
[1:24:03] Speaker 4: I can put it on screen.
[1:24:04] Speaker 2: I can put it on screen. It's gonna be rather small,
[1:24:09] Speaker 2: but I can blow it up though, hold on, go ahead,
[1:24:11] Speaker 2: I'm cool.
[1:24:13] Speaker 1: Yeah, it's gonna be rather small. But that's that's the idea.
[1:24:16] Speaker 4: I think we were only at well, I think I
[1:24:19] Speaker 4: don't even think where we were. But premise one is
[1:24:22] Speaker 4: just going to be this is an empirical observation. Causes happen,
[1:24:27] Speaker 4: cause and effect. I look out into the world, I
[1:24:28] Speaker 4: see the causes are happening. I would look at that.
[1:24:32] Speaker 4: Some people are gonna deny that causation happens, like Hume,
[1:24:35] Speaker 4: David Hume. Some people are going to be like, oh, well,
[1:24:37] Speaker 4: we can't know of the world that exists outside our minds.
[1:24:40] Speaker 4: Those people are going to have issues with this premise.
[1:24:42] Speaker 4: But I think for most common sense people, they're gonna
[1:24:45] Speaker 4: be like, yeah, movement, causation, things are happening outside, and
[1:24:48] Speaker 4: sure nothing exists prior to itself. This is just a
[1:24:54] Speaker 4: metaphysical reality.
[1:24:56] Speaker 1: I think. So this is unobjectionable.
[1:24:58] Speaker 2: Disagree with premise too, Yeah, But I think this is
[1:25:02] Speaker 2: where you and I differ right, is you're assuming I.
[1:25:04] Speaker 1: Think it's the series.
[1:25:06] Speaker 2: Right, You're assuming that it didn't exist prior to itself
[1:25:10] Speaker 2: and then God made it exist. But then I would
[1:25:13] Speaker 2: push back. I would say, well, first of all, I
[1:25:14] Speaker 2: don't believe it'd be the case. We already talked about that.
[1:25:16] Speaker 2: But secondly, you would have to explain why God isn't
[1:25:19] Speaker 2: somehow special pleading right, So, if the universe can't exist
[1:25:24] Speaker 2: prior to itself then and living in infinite regress, then
[1:25:28] Speaker 2: how is it that God can? And then we got
[1:25:31] Speaker 2: into the whole nonsense discussion about God actually living within time,
[1:25:35] Speaker 2: because as far as I can tell, there can be
[1:25:37] Speaker 2: no sequencing of any types of events without time.
[1:25:41] Speaker 4: And that's why I resisted that by saying that, and
[1:25:44] Speaker 4: this God is. This is what I think triggered the
[1:25:46] Speaker 4: whole side quest of looking into the Bible discursive reasoning.
[1:25:50] Speaker 4: All that is because I resisted that by saying that
[1:25:54] Speaker 4: if God exists outside of time, that's not the only
[1:25:57] Speaker 4: view that you could have. But if God exists side of.
[1:26:00] Speaker 1: Time, then.
[1:26:04] Speaker 4: Then there wouldn't be any change in God. This is
[1:26:06] Speaker 4: just one of the well known attributes of God among
[1:26:13] Speaker 4: Christian theologians, which he's unchangeable, impassable, you can't be affected, yeah, immutable. Yeah,
[1:26:22] Speaker 4: so that's what got us off track. Special pleading. Let's
[1:26:25] Speaker 4: talk about that. I think that, and it had a
[1:26:31] Speaker 4: video on this about how the atheists special pleads, and
[1:26:34] Speaker 4: a lot of people didn't like that. A lot of
[1:26:37] Speaker 4: people didn't like that because I think that there could
[1:26:39] Speaker 4: be some special pleading here. You know, not all atheists
[1:26:43] Speaker 4: are the same kind of person, but I think that
[1:26:50] Speaker 4: if the atheists, for example, denies the principle of cause
[1:26:55] Speaker 4: and effect, then you don't get this right. So, so,
[1:27:03] Speaker 4: for example.
[1:27:04] Speaker 2: Have I denied the principle cause and effect? In fact,
[1:27:06] Speaker 2: I'm right, I'm insisting that cause and effect actually happens,
[1:27:10] Speaker 2: and it's been happening infinitely, which is I mean, theoretically
[1:27:14] Speaker 2: the only way God could have spoke things into his existence.
[1:27:16] Speaker 2: He spoke it and then it happened to cause an effect.
[1:27:19] Speaker 4: M So in that in that case, I would I
[1:27:22] Speaker 4: would say, look, I think you have a special case
[1:27:25] Speaker 4: of special pleading because you're saying that for all other things,
[1:27:29] Speaker 4: you know, we like to use empirical observation for this,
[1:27:32] Speaker 4: It's okay, we don't need it. It's just that we don't.
[1:27:34] Speaker 4: We don't know if it's always been add infinite um
[1:27:38] Speaker 4: into the past, eternally into the past, it cost effects
[1:27:40] Speaker 4: been happening, But we just think that it is right.
[1:27:43] Speaker 2: What I'm saying is all the evidence we have points
[1:27:46] Speaker 2: towards that. Like, I don't have any evidence that would
[1:27:48] Speaker 2: point me towards the fact that once nothing existed, I
[1:27:52] Speaker 2: have no evidence of that.
[1:27:55] Speaker 3: All I can do is use the evidence I have.
[1:27:58] Speaker 4: I think I think the opposite here, So I don't
[1:28:02] Speaker 4: I don't want us to be at an impasse, but
[1:28:03] Speaker 4: I think that all the evidence points towards an ultimate
[1:28:07] Speaker 4: beginning in the Big Bang, I think science beyond. They
[1:28:12] Speaker 4: don't disagree about the Big Bang.
[1:28:14] Speaker 3: They agree that the Big Bang happened.
[1:28:16] Speaker 2: They disagree with the claim that there was nothing prior
[1:28:20] Speaker 2: to it.
[1:28:22] Speaker 4: Right, So here's the thing, Like that the originator of
[1:28:25] Speaker 4: the Big Bang theory was a Catholic priest. He did
[1:28:27] Speaker 4: not think that there was it that just it just
[1:28:30] Speaker 4: continued on and on and on and on, or that
[1:28:33] Speaker 4: the Big Bang happened there is nothing that caused it.
[1:28:35] Speaker 4: They sort of atheists proposals. So the originator of the
[1:28:40] Speaker 4: theory himself, you know, for whatever that's worth I'm not
[1:28:42] Speaker 4: saying it's worth everything. But for somebody who knew what
[1:28:46] Speaker 4: he was talking about, he thought that these things were
[1:28:49] Speaker 4: he thought that the evidence led to God. Well, yeah,
[1:28:52] Speaker 4: because he existed before modern cosmology. Modern cosmology does not
[1:28:57] Speaker 4: disprove God.
[1:28:59] Speaker 2: I didn't say I did. I'm saying that the opinion
[1:29:02] Speaker 2: of the person you're appealing to lived at a time
[1:29:05] Speaker 2: where he doesn't know what we know now, just like
[1:29:07] Speaker 2: people at the early days of learning human biology don't
[1:29:13] Speaker 2: know what we know now. Yeah, they did some great
[1:29:14] Speaker 2: anatomy field work, but we know infinitely more today than
[1:29:19] Speaker 2: they knew one hundred years ago.
[1:29:22] Speaker 1: Yeah.
[1:29:23] Speaker 4: So I don't think that knowing more about cosmology would
[1:29:26] Speaker 4: make you not believe in God, because again I think, so,
[1:29:31] Speaker 4: let's imagine I don't know if you said anything with
[1:29:33] Speaker 4: the respect of the multiverse, but or let's just imagine
[1:29:36] Speaker 4: an infinite series. Whatever those things are. It would get
[1:29:40] Speaker 4: us into a third way with respect to contingency, Like
[1:29:43] Speaker 4: those things are contingent things. We have no other reason
[1:29:46] Speaker 4: to think that they're otherwise. I mean, I know you
[1:29:48] Speaker 4: want to resist that, and that's fine.
[1:29:50] Speaker 2: No, but I didn't deny that the items within our
[1:29:55] Speaker 2: universe are contingent. I'm just saying that, I'm just saying
[1:29:58] Speaker 2: the infinite cause, oh, the universe as a whole.
[1:30:00] Speaker 4: No, it's just a brute Yeah. See that's unsatisfying to me.
[1:30:05] Speaker 3: But we know that.
[1:30:06] Speaker 2: You say, you're just saying God is a brute fact,
[1:30:08] Speaker 2: and I'm saying the thing we know exists, the stuff
[1:30:11] Speaker 2: we know for a fact exists, is a brute fact.
[1:30:15] Speaker 2: You're saying, no, no, no, I don't like that brute fact.
[1:30:17] Speaker 2: So I'm going to appeal to a different brute fact
[1:30:19] Speaker 2: that I have no evidence exists.
[1:30:23] Speaker 1: That's see the thing.
[1:30:26] Speaker 4: I don't think those are similar whatsoever. I don't think
[1:30:28] Speaker 4: God is a brute fact.
[1:30:29] Speaker 2: Okay, then a brute fact you'd have to demonstrate why.
[1:30:33] Speaker 3: I would accept the God claim.
[1:30:36] Speaker 4: So a brute fact is the idea that here's something
[1:30:40] Speaker 4: I have no evidence for it whatsoever. It's just an assumption.
[1:30:43] Speaker 4: I'm proven hypothetical speculation here. That's a brute fact. I
[1:30:47] Speaker 4: can't tell you why, but it just is. That's not
[1:30:50] Speaker 4: what I'm doing with God.
[1:30:52] Speaker 2: But you haven't provided a single reason why we need
[1:30:55] Speaker 2: a God. What does God? What problem does God solve?
[1:30:57] Speaker 2: Because as far as I can tell he creates more
[1:30:59] Speaker 2: problems than he solf. I mean, you could perhaps allege
[1:31:04] Speaker 2: that me saying that an infinite regress is impossible is
[1:31:09] Speaker 2: a brew fact that'd be okay with. But I get
[1:31:12] Speaker 2: to God's existence by saying an infinite regress is impossible,
[1:31:17] Speaker 2: and that's a difference, that's not a breof fact. Yeah,
[1:31:20] Speaker 2: but why is it impossible? Like, so, we've done this
[1:31:23] Speaker 2: before and again. I have the infinite regress argument about
[1:31:27] Speaker 2: four thousand times, and it never ends where you want
[1:31:30] Speaker 2: it to end. It's never gonna end in me accepting
[1:31:32] Speaker 2: that infinite regresses are impossible.
[1:31:34] Speaker 1: Because infinite regress never ends.
[1:31:36] Speaker 3: You got it.
[1:31:37] Speaker 2: And so the reality is that you either do or
[1:31:41] Speaker 2: you don't accept that infinite regresses are or are not possible.
[1:31:45] Speaker 2: And I can't see a good reason to believe that
[1:31:48] Speaker 2: they're not possible. I've never seen a good argument for it.
[1:31:51] Speaker 2: And I've seen the arguments. I've heard the domino argument,
[1:31:54] Speaker 2: I've heard Hilbert's hotel, I know all the typical arguments
[1:31:58] Speaker 2: that are used.
[1:31:59] Speaker 3: I don't find any of them to be convincing.
[1:32:02] Speaker 2: And everything I know from science would point me towards
[1:32:05] Speaker 2: the fact that we do have an infinite regress.
[1:32:09] Speaker 1: So let me ask you this. I'll have to.
[1:32:12] Speaker 4: Wrap up here because I've got an appointment. I got
[1:32:14] Speaker 4: to get you at the top of the hour. But
[1:32:18] Speaker 4: do you think everything has to have a cause?
[1:32:22] Speaker 2: I think everything does have a cause, and I think
[1:32:24] Speaker 2: it's an infinite regress of causes.
[1:32:26] Speaker 4: Again, so that seems nonsensical to me, only for the
[1:32:33] Speaker 4: fact that how does an infinite regress cause itself? And
[1:32:37] Speaker 4: if you want to say it, would you say that
[1:32:39] Speaker 4: an infinite regress causes itself?
[1:32:40] Speaker 2: Just to break it down, Well, infinite regress isn't a thing.
[1:32:43] Speaker 2: An infinite regress is an idea. It's the process of
[1:32:47] Speaker 2: things that are causing themselves. But processes aren't things that exist.
[1:32:50] Speaker 2: They're descriptions of how things behave sure, right, It's like
[1:32:53] Speaker 2: the scientific method isn't the thing that exists, it's a
[1:32:57] Speaker 2: description of a process.
[1:32:58] Speaker 1: Right, Sure, I agree with you.
[1:33:01] Speaker 2: So I don't think an infinite regress needs a cause
[1:33:04] Speaker 2: because it's not a thing, but.
[1:33:09] Speaker 4: That an infinite regress, the process could just be infinitely
[1:33:14] Speaker 4: long to have no beginning, that's what you think.
[1:33:17] Speaker 2: Yeah, I think that's parsimonious with what we know from science. Now, listen,
[1:33:22] Speaker 2: we might discover something down the road. We might learn
[1:33:24] Speaker 2: twenty five years from now that that's not true. That
[1:33:27] Speaker 2: as it turns out, we find definitive evidence that prior
[1:33:30] Speaker 2: to the Big Bang there was absolutely nothing. Well, that
[1:33:33] Speaker 2: information hasn't occurred. We don't have that evidence. All the
[1:33:36] Speaker 2: evidence points of the contrary. And if we did have
[1:33:38] Speaker 2: that evidence, to me, it still wouldn't point me towards
[1:33:41] Speaker 2: the god. I would still posit a naturalistic phenomenon that
[1:33:45] Speaker 2: caused the initial moment. Right, So, even if we accepted
[1:33:48] Speaker 2: that there was an initial moment, we have no reason
[1:33:51] Speaker 2: to accept that it was caused by a god.
[1:33:56] Speaker 4: Yeah, so why would you then go back to a
[1:33:59] Speaker 4: nat realistic explanation? Because why the resistance to a supernatural.
[1:34:04] Speaker 2: Because it's easier to explain with less entailments. Right, Once
[1:34:08] Speaker 2: you include a god, now you've got intailments. You've got
[1:34:10] Speaker 2: something that is a thinking agent that has a mind,
[1:34:14] Speaker 2: will and emotions and desires, right, and then you have
[1:34:17] Speaker 2: to explain those desires. This is where we get into
[1:34:19] Speaker 2: like the problem of natural evil. Right, Like, Okay, now,
[1:34:24] Speaker 2: if we're going to say a god is responsible for it,
[1:34:26] Speaker 2: we've got a lot of unexpected things coming from this
[1:34:30] Speaker 2: new God that invented everything, Like why does he create
[1:34:34] Speaker 2: a world that has infinite suffering? For example, earthquakes, volcanos, tsunamis.
[1:34:41] Speaker 2: These things don't really serve a purpose. These are unnecessary
[1:34:45] Speaker 2: sources of suffering.
[1:34:47] Speaker 1: As far as we know.
[1:34:50] Speaker 2: Can you can you think of why they're needed?
[1:34:53] Speaker 1: Because I'm a human, No, I cannot.
[1:34:55] Speaker 4: Right, Like fact, what this argument assumes is that we
[1:34:58] Speaker 4: humans know better in God, that God has no reason
[1:35:01] Speaker 4: for this, And that's that's a big leap that's not substantiated.
[1:35:05] Speaker 2: Could God accomplish the goals without them?
[1:35:10] Speaker 1: I'm not God, I don't know, But.
[1:35:12] Speaker 3: If he can't, then he's not. It's all powerful.
[1:35:15] Speaker 4: So to your point, well, that's not necessarily true, Sonanzibniz
[1:35:22] Speaker 4: has a view on which, like he talks about the
[1:35:25] Speaker 4: best universe that could exist, it's not going to be
[1:35:28] Speaker 4: the one without any suffering whatsoever. Anything about also the
[1:35:31] Speaker 4: problem of problem of evil? Right about natural evil?
[1:35:36] Speaker 2: I'm talking about earthquakes, natural suffering or evil, the natural phenomenon.
[1:35:40] Speaker 1: And that's what I mean.
[1:35:41] Speaker 2: No evil is like something humans do, Like you insult
[1:35:44] Speaker 2: somebody I know, ruined their day.
[1:35:46] Speaker 3: I'm talking about hurricanes.
[1:35:47] Speaker 1: Natural evil, hurricanes, earthquakes and so on. I understand.
[1:35:51] Speaker 4: Yeah, so Leibniz, his response to the problem is to
[1:35:55] Speaker 4: say that God, in his infinite wisdom, would know how
[1:35:59] Speaker 4: to balance out all the things such that there would
[1:36:02] Speaker 4: be the lowest amount of evil things natural and human evil,
[1:36:05] Speaker 4: and the highest amount of good in the world. Right, So,
[1:36:08] Speaker 4: like he would just know what what balance of those
[1:36:11] Speaker 4: things would be. If it's such that having maximal good
[1:36:16] Speaker 4: in a world with no evil would end up being
[1:36:20] Speaker 4: less good than having a little bit of evil and
[1:36:26] Speaker 4: a little less.
[1:36:26] Speaker 6: Good, right, so then we should we know that we
[1:36:29] Speaker 6: shouldn't when people can come from when people are in
[1:36:33] Speaker 6: earthquakes and tsunomis, like, we shouldn't take them to the hospital.
[1:36:38] Speaker 2: Like, aren't we intervening with God God's desires?
[1:36:43] Speaker 1: No?
[1:36:45] Speaker 2: So the natural disasters, what are they good for? What
[1:36:47] Speaker 2: do we need him for?
[1:36:51] Speaker 1: I don't know.
[1:36:52] Speaker 2: Okay, I'm saying, lets natural disasters are an unexpected reality
[1:36:57] Speaker 2: where there's a powerful.
[1:36:59] Speaker 1: And stick about this.
[1:37:00] Speaker 4: You're making some atlandish claims about with all due respect,
[1:37:04] Speaker 4: some claims that are unsubstantiated. Hey, I as a human
[1:37:07] Speaker 4: know that God has no reason for this and even
[1:37:09] Speaker 4: if he did, his reasons are really bad.
[1:37:11] Speaker 3: I didn't say that.
[1:37:12] Speaker 2: What I'm saying is if God couldn't accomplish if God
[1:37:15] Speaker 2: needs to send of whatever tornado through Mississippi, if he
[1:37:21] Speaker 2: needs to do that to accomplish his goals, then you're
[1:37:26] Speaker 2: implying that he couldn't have accomplished his goals without the tornado.
[1:37:29] Speaker 4: Right, is that the implantation? Suppose there? I mean, given
[1:37:35] Speaker 4: that the tornado was contingent, there are other ways to
[1:37:37] Speaker 4: accomplish his goals. It might include a different tornado, might
[1:37:39] Speaker 4: include a different disaster. It might include his no disaster
[1:37:41] Speaker 4: at all.
[1:37:41] Speaker 1: I'm not God. I don't know, but I'm not omniscient.
[1:37:44] Speaker 2: But if we presume that God sent the tornado because
[1:37:47] Speaker 2: he needed outcome X Y and Z, right, could he
[1:37:51] Speaker 2: achieve outcome X Y and Z without the tornado?
[1:37:56] Speaker 4: I mean, I don't think the tornado is necessary. I
[1:37:57] Speaker 4: think it's contingent.
[1:37:58] Speaker 2: So the email that it's not necessary, it's unnecessary disaster,
[1:38:03] Speaker 2: unnecessary suffering. The minute you tell me that tornadoes are
[1:38:07] Speaker 2: not necessary, they become unnecessary.
[1:38:09] Speaker 1: Now. I know you think that was a clever admission,
[1:38:11] Speaker 1: but it was not.
[1:38:12] Speaker 3: It was a great admission. I'm glad he finally gave
[1:38:14] Speaker 3: it to me.
[1:38:15] Speaker 1: No, because if.
[1:38:16] Speaker 4: You recall what I just said earlier, it could have
[1:38:18] Speaker 4: been that tornado, could have been differone, could have been
[1:38:20] Speaker 4: an earthquake, could been no tornado or earthquake whatsoever, could
[1:38:22] Speaker 4: do anything, because those things are contingent. But then it'd
[1:38:25] Speaker 4: be necessary that he brings it about everything God do.
[1:38:30] Speaker 4: Is is it necessary? I think the siation of the
[1:38:32] Speaker 4: world is contingent.
[1:38:34] Speaker 2: Well, when when God is doing it, they very.
[1:38:36] Speaker 4: Well have created nothing in the world whatsoever. But if
[1:38:38] Speaker 4: God has certain purposes, certain aims, certain goals such that
[1:38:42] Speaker 4: the maximum amount of good could be brought about in
[1:38:44] Speaker 4: the world like, then those are his aims, and He
[1:38:48] Speaker 4: will do things that that go towards those aims.
[1:38:52] Speaker 2: That's my point.
[1:38:53] Speaker 4: Yes, it could be this, it could be that, it
[1:38:55] Speaker 4: could be another thing, but so each one of those
[1:38:57] Speaker 4: things is contingent.
[1:38:58] Speaker 2: That's why I'm saying God is doing something to achieve
[1:39:01] Speaker 2: his goals, and we in your worldview, the natural disasters
[1:39:05] Speaker 2: are something that God obviously needs to achieve his goals.
[1:39:08] Speaker 2: So if he needs them, then they're necessary, right. But
[1:39:13] Speaker 2: if he needs them, then you're suggesting he couldn't do
[1:39:15] Speaker 2: it another way. If he could do it another way,
[1:39:19] Speaker 2: then they're no longer necessary.
[1:39:21] Speaker 4: Yeah, that's not what philosophers mean by necessity. Like I'm
[1:39:24] Speaker 4: talking about metaphysical necessity.
[1:39:25] Speaker 2: I'm not talking about metaphysical necessity. I'm talking about God's ability.
[1:39:30] Speaker 4: So I'm i am denying that these are necessary and
[1:39:34] Speaker 4: I'm affirming that they are contingent with respect to metaphysical necessity.
[1:39:38] Speaker 4: Obviously they're not necessary like that, like the reality of
[1:39:41] Speaker 4: numbers and mathematical truths, logical truths, those things are just necessary,
[1:39:45] Speaker 4: so God doesn't see them otherwise that the events in
[1:39:51] Speaker 4: the world contingent.
[1:39:54] Speaker 2: So God doesn't need to use natural disasters to accomplish
[1:39:57] Speaker 2: his goals.
[1:39:57] Speaker 4: Right, I don't know. I'm not God like that. You're
[1:40:02] Speaker 4: trying to get me to say. You're trying to get
[1:40:04] Speaker 4: me to say with respect to me being a human
[1:40:07] Speaker 4: And maybe that's like getting an aunt to say, Hey,
[1:40:09] Speaker 4: why do you think these people moved into this house?
[1:40:12] Speaker 4: You know, like why do you think their goals were?
[1:40:15] Speaker 4: Like why would they do it that way? Because they
[1:40:17] Speaker 4: have done it. That's it's just ridiculous.
[1:40:19] Speaker 2: That's why I started the conversation with this an unexpected
[1:40:22] Speaker 2: reality given your framework, given the framework that there is
[1:40:25] Speaker 2: an all loving, all knowing, all powerful entity that is
[1:40:29] Speaker 2: also wanting to accomplish his goals. If if he can't
[1:40:33] Speaker 2: do it without the natural disasters, then somehow he's bound
[1:40:37] Speaker 2: and he's not all powerful. If he can do it
[1:40:39] Speaker 2: with the natural disasters but doesn't have to, then that
[1:40:42] Speaker 2: means the natural disasters aren't needed to accomplish his goals,
[1:40:45] Speaker 2: which means it's just unnecessary suffering. He's not actually all good.
[1:40:48] Speaker 2: You've got a Mexican stand off with the omni properties.
[1:40:52] Speaker 1: Yeah, I don't think so.
[1:40:53] Speaker 4: And if you want to talk about the the problem
[1:40:56] Speaker 4: of evil, there's a logical problem of evil, which is
[1:40:58] Speaker 4: what you're discussing the idea there's this Mexican standa, in
[1:41:01] Speaker 4: other words, that they're logically inconsistent for someone. And then
[1:41:05] Speaker 4: so that's the logical problem of evil. Then you have
[1:41:07] Speaker 4: the evidential sorry sorry, the existential problem of evil that
[1:41:11] Speaker 4: more of like human suffering in general. I'm going through
[1:41:13] Speaker 4: something hard and so I find it really hard to believe.
[1:41:15] Speaker 1: That God exists.
[1:41:16] Speaker 4: The logical problem of evil. If you read philosophers of religion,
[1:41:19] Speaker 4: they consider the logical problem of evil to be resolved.
[1:41:22] Speaker 4: It's not a problem at all. Like even atheist philosophers
[1:41:25] Speaker 4: will say this, Yes there are atheist philosophers or religion
[1:41:28] Speaker 4: like Graham Api. There's not a lot, but there are few.
[1:41:31] Speaker 4: The logical problem of evil is considered to be solved.
[1:41:33] Speaker 4: The existential problem of viel, that of suffering is still open.
[1:41:39] Speaker 4: Like people going through a really hard time, getting cancer,
[1:41:41] Speaker 4: losing their job, whatever it may be, they find it
[1:41:44] Speaker 4: really hard. They find it really hard to believe that
[1:41:47] Speaker 4: God exists, right, and so finding it hard to believe.
[1:41:52] Speaker 4: What I'm saying is it's inconsistent with the attributes that
[1:41:55] Speaker 4: are given to God. Like yeah, So if if you
[1:41:59] Speaker 4: want to do more reading this, and I'm sorry, I've
[1:42:01] Speaker 4: got to go, but I would recommend reading Eleanor Stump.
[1:42:06] Speaker 4: She's a Meritis Professor of philosophy at Saint Louis University. She's
[1:42:11] Speaker 4: a Catholic philosopher herself very imminent and well known, and
[1:42:16] Speaker 4: she's written a book. I think it came out in
[1:42:18] Speaker 4: twenty twelve, I think Oxford University Press is called Walking
[1:42:21] Speaker 4: in Darkness. It's an examination of look at the problem
[1:42:24] Speaker 4: of suffering. So and in that of course she's got
[1:42:27] Speaker 4: to set it up so in that she also talks about.
[1:42:29] Speaker 1: The logical problem of evil. So this would be a
[1:42:31] Speaker 1: good reference to go look at both.
[1:42:33] Speaker 7: If you like.
[1:42:34] Speaker 2: Sure, I'll be definitely engaging in some philosophy this year.
[1:42:37] Speaker 2: It's not really where I spend most of my time
[1:42:39] Speaker 2: because I don't think it provides you with solutions that
[1:42:43] Speaker 2: are we'll say the average person cares to hear about.
[1:42:48] Speaker 2: But that being said, you know, if if we find
[1:42:51] Speaker 2: these instances were to say, okay, God has these attributes,
[1:42:54] Speaker 2: and then we look at the world around us and say,
[1:42:57] Speaker 2: are these attributes consistent with our observation. If they're not consistent,
[1:43:02] Speaker 2: then I'm inclined to believe that those attributes can't be
[1:43:04] Speaker 2: the case.
[1:43:06] Speaker 4: Yeah, that's totally understandable. And just with respect to like
[1:43:10] Speaker 4: these high level, heady conversations, I myself don't always find
[1:43:16] Speaker 4: them all that enjoyable, you know, because they're hard work,
[1:43:21] Speaker 4: I think. But I think doing the hard work reading
[1:43:23] Speaker 4: the philosophy that sort of thing that I don't always do.
[1:43:27] Speaker 4: I think some people may think that, I don't know
[1:43:29] Speaker 4: what would give them the impression that I'm always reading,
[1:43:31] Speaker 4: but I'm not. I've got to turn it off sometimes too,
[1:43:35] Speaker 4: because you've got to go out and live your life.
[1:43:37] Speaker 4: You've got to have real everyday conversations. But I think
[1:43:40] Speaker 4: doing the hard work is worthwhile. It's worth it. And
[1:43:45] Speaker 4: like examining what philosopher is, what the elogians have said
[1:43:48] Speaker 4: about these things that we've discussed here today, that the
[1:43:51] Speaker 4: payoff then comes in the everyday conversations, being able to say, Okay,
[1:43:55] Speaker 4: well I understand it this way, what do you think
[1:43:57] Speaker 4: and so on and so on.
[1:43:58] Speaker 2: Yeah, well, listen, doctor mccowster. I enjoyed the conversation. I
[1:44:02] Speaker 2: know that this is a contentious conversation for a lot
[1:44:07] Speaker 2: of people, and you've been incredibly cordial, and you've even
[1:44:11] Speaker 2: tolerated me talking over you a few times, which you
[1:44:14] Speaker 2: don't have to. You didn't have to do that.
[1:44:16] Speaker 4: I grew up with like a family of five kids,
[1:44:18] Speaker 4: so I'm used to it. Yeah, I was the youngest
[1:44:20] Speaker 4: of eight like that. This is our love language is
[1:44:22] Speaker 4: yelling at each other exactly exactly.
[1:44:24] Speaker 1: You don't get hurt all the time. This is why we're.
[1:44:27] Speaker 3: On YouTube, right exactly.
[1:44:28] Speaker 1: Yeah.
[1:44:29] Speaker 2: Yeah, But so I appreciate you coming in and being cordial,
[1:44:32] Speaker 2: and so you know, big w for coming in and
[1:44:37] Speaker 2: do come back, because you were one of the few
[1:44:40] Speaker 2: philosophers that came in and didn't try to bury the
[1:44:44] Speaker 2: conversation in jargon. And those are conversations that go nowhere.
[1:44:48] Speaker 2: They're not helpful for me or the audience or anyone else.
[1:44:53] Speaker 4: Well, I appreciate that. I'd love to be back. It's
[1:44:55] Speaker 4: got to run out, but we'll set it up again soon.
[1:44:57] Speaker 4: Do you have my email? And I look all right?
[1:45:00] Speaker 2: Take care man, heures by you.
[1:45:02] Speaker 1: Twoe bye bye.
[1:45:05] Speaker 2: Well, big dubs for Derek comeing in and being cordial.
[1:45:09] Speaker 2: We don't see a lot of cordial philbros. That's not
[1:45:11] Speaker 2: a thing that happens too often.
[1:45:14] Speaker 3: So big w for that.
[1:45:15] Speaker 2: Let me grab some super chats friends, and then we'll
[1:45:18] Speaker 2: grab our next guests coming up. We had Sarah in
[1:45:21] Speaker 2: here for a while and she she had to run
[1:45:23] Speaker 2: because she couldn't communicate with the guests because they're on
[1:45:25] Speaker 2: different platforms. But maybe she'll come back if we bring
[1:45:28] Speaker 2: a TikTok guest in. If Sarah, if you're hanging out
[1:45:30] Speaker 2: with us, I think we've got a TikTok guest waiting.
[1:45:33] Speaker 1: To get in.
[1:45:33] Speaker 2: We can bring you up with them. Anyways, Brian, thank
[1:45:36] Speaker 2: you for the super test, says sick in bed right
[1:45:38] Speaker 2: now but couldn't miss this. Love your streams, praise Doug Brianna, Well,
[1:45:42] Speaker 2: thank you so much, Brianna for being sick in bed
[1:45:45] Speaker 2: and choosing like you could. You could watch whatever shows
[1:45:48] Speaker 2: on Netflix, but you chose to be here. So thank
[1:45:50] Speaker 2: you so much for watching the show and for supporting
[1:45:53] Speaker 2: big w on that one. And Paw says I believe
[1:45:57] Speaker 2: in the trinity, all right, that being the Alga, Palkia
[1:46:02] Speaker 2: and Garantina. These three would make yahweh run for the hills. Now, Pile,
[1:46:09] Speaker 2: I don't recognize those names, but now I wish I
[1:46:11] Speaker 2: did so. If you're in the discord, jump in there.
[1:46:15] Speaker 2: If somebody helped me out on these names. I don't
[1:46:16] Speaker 2: recognize these names. I don't know if these are deities
[1:46:19] Speaker 2: or if you guys are pulling my leg. But also
[1:46:23] Speaker 2: for all the people joining who weren't here at the
[1:46:25] Speaker 2: beginning of the stream, I did finally set up a
[1:46:27] Speaker 2: Patreon for those who wanted to support the stream. But
[1:46:30] Speaker 2: you don't want to join on YouTube or on TikTok,
[1:46:34] Speaker 2: and you still want access to the cheat sheet, join
[1:46:37] Speaker 2: me over on the Patreon and bad religion. Thank you
[1:46:41] Speaker 2: for sending out five subscriptions on TikTok. I really appreciate
[1:46:45] Speaker 2: that friend. Good to hear from you. And also Eric
[1:46:48] Speaker 2: Smith says thoughts on Isaiah forty two to one through four.
[1:46:52] Speaker 2: It doesn't fit Jesus, of course, but is the servant
[1:46:55] Speaker 2: in this passage a messianic individual rather than the whole nation?
[1:46:59] Speaker 2: So my personal opinion on the servant of Isaiah has
[1:47:03] Speaker 2: always been that the servant is technically not all of Israel.
[1:47:08] Speaker 2: It's the righteous remnant of Israel. Just like when when
[1:47:11] Speaker 2: Jeremiah went into when his people went into exile, he
[1:47:16] Speaker 2: referred to himself as a righteous sufferer, suffering on behalf
[1:47:22] Speaker 2: of those who were unrighteous. And chapter forty two is
[1:47:26] Speaker 2: a tough one. And for example, if you read chapter
[1:47:29] Speaker 2: forty two, verse twenty four and twenty five, there's like
[1:47:32] Speaker 2: four or five times where the who's ever writing changes
[1:47:36] Speaker 2: between we, they, him, or he, and you're like, I
[1:47:40] Speaker 2: have no idea who the author is referring to. They
[1:47:42] Speaker 2: keep referring to different entities in various ways, but verses
[1:47:47] Speaker 2: one through four it says, here's my servant. My personal
[1:47:50] Speaker 2: opinion is that the servant in forty two is probably
[1:47:53] Speaker 2: King Cyrus.
[1:47:55] Speaker 3: That's because just a few verses.
[1:47:57] Speaker 2: Prior, go to verse forty one twenty five, I've he says,
[1:48:01] Speaker 2: I has stirred up one from the north, and he
[1:48:04] Speaker 2: has come from the rising of the sun, and he
[1:48:07] Speaker 2: is and he was summoned by name. He will trample
[1:48:10] Speaker 2: odd rulers. So he spends all this time talking about
[1:48:13] Speaker 2: King Cyrus. Then it says, here's my servant, who I
[1:48:16] Speaker 2: behold my chosen right. And so it's possible that the
[1:48:22] Speaker 2: servant in forty two is King Cyrus, who got on
[1:48:25] Speaker 2: multiple occasions says is his missiok, and is going to
[1:48:27] Speaker 2: be doing his bidding, says he will rebuild my city
[1:48:30] Speaker 2: in my temple. Good question, though, Josh, thank you for
[1:48:34] Speaker 2: the two our supertest says hell yeah. Listening at work, well,
[1:48:37] Speaker 2: work hard, don't get too distracted, don't hurt yourself, and
[1:48:40] Speaker 2: have a great time. And Kyle kay, good to see
[1:48:42] Speaker 2: your friend, it says, I think. Neil Degrass Tyson says
[1:48:44] Speaker 2: that the edge of the universe is expanding forever, even
[1:48:47] Speaker 2: the edge of it continuously is expanding. Well, I don't
[1:48:52] Speaker 2: know what Neil Degrass Tyson has said so. I Unfortunately
[1:48:56] Speaker 2: I can't really comment on what he said. But if
[1:49:00] Speaker 2: Neildgrasse Tyson thinks that the universe isn't going to go
[1:49:03] Speaker 2: through an infinite cycle, that's one thing. Be certainly open
[1:49:07] Speaker 2: to hearing what he says about it. Marcus says, Lol,
[1:49:11] Speaker 2: I believe in a magical man who created everything and
[1:49:14] Speaker 2: exists outside of time itself. Also, an internal universe is impossible.
[1:49:18] Speaker 3: Element.
[1:49:20] Speaker 2: Oh look, you got my card. You can see it
[1:49:23] Speaker 2: over here and over here. Hey big w on, I'm
[1:49:27] Speaker 2: putting as your profile picture the the Magic Gathering Card.
[1:49:33] Speaker 3: I made it for Jesus.
[1:49:34] Speaker 2: If you go to the shop and YouTube, I created
[1:49:37] Speaker 2: a sticker it looks like a magic the Gathering card
[1:49:40] Speaker 2: with the properties of Jesus is awesome. Sat Com thank
[1:49:43] Speaker 2: you for the twin hour superchat. It says, for the
[1:49:45] Speaker 2: leaders of the major religions, are all the ambiguities, confusion
[1:49:49] Speaker 2: and inconsistencies of the Bible bugs or features? Do they
[1:49:53] Speaker 2: need a text to be unclear to maintain control? So
[1:49:56] Speaker 2: this is actually really good point, which is if the
[1:49:59] Speaker 2: Bible is our so theology, it's weird to me that
[1:50:01] Speaker 2: it's so hopelessly convoluted, and normal people don't really have
[1:50:06] Speaker 2: access to it or to understand the ambiguities of it. Right,
[1:50:11] Speaker 2: It's just it's a weird, unexpected thing. And Cryptic says
[1:50:14] Speaker 2: the Big Crunch Big Bounce is a hypothesis, not a theory. No,
[1:50:18] Speaker 2: it's both. When people like the Zela say theory, they
[1:50:22] Speaker 2: are either ignorant or dishonest. I don't think you understand
[1:50:26] Speaker 2: what the word theory means. Theory just is an explanation
[1:50:29] Speaker 2: for something like electrical theory. Electrical theory was a theory
[1:50:33] Speaker 2: before it was proven and after it was proven. Theory
[1:50:37] Speaker 2: just means an explanation for something. But appreciate the super
[1:50:40] Speaker 2: chap and Kyle says, wouldn't time be irrelevant if you're
[1:50:43] Speaker 2: in a space where it is infinite, where there is
[1:50:47] Speaker 2: no day or night. Yeah, I mean if there's if
[1:50:51] Speaker 2: there's space, then there must be time because space time
[1:50:54] Speaker 2: is in fact a web according to science. And this
[1:50:56] Speaker 2: is kind of the hard part is you can't separate
[1:50:58] Speaker 2: space from time, you know, I mean, And Josh says,
[1:51:03] Speaker 2: special pleading attempts bro with these conversations. There's always special pleading.
[1:51:09] Speaker 2: Marcus says, the problem is that it doesn't say that
[1:51:11] Speaker 2: that's what you wanted to say. Yes, that's exactly that's
[1:51:14] Speaker 2: what I've said to him. The fact of the matter
[1:51:16] Speaker 2: is people want the Bible to say things that it
[1:51:18] Speaker 2: doesn't actually say to reinforce their opinions.
[1:51:22] Speaker 3: That's why they have the same old arguments.
[1:51:24] Speaker 2: According to Quill, I agree in front of a book page.
[1:51:27] Speaker 2: I think he had real books actually on that one.
[1:51:29] Speaker 2: And yng Vey, thank you for the super test, he says,
[1:51:33] Speaker 2: really enjoying this conversation where both parties have the ability
[1:51:35] Speaker 2: to stay calm and consider each other's arguments. Actually, I
[1:51:38] Speaker 2: do like these conversations. I thought i'd have more of
[1:51:40] Speaker 2: them when I first got online. And JJ, welcome to
[1:51:43] Speaker 2: the crew, and also Chance, thank you for the nineteen
[1:51:48] Speaker 2: ninety nine. I super appreciate that, friend, and I am
[1:51:51] Speaker 2: the cheese. Thank you so much for the supergest says.
[1:51:54] Speaker 2: Doctor says. We should discuss Bible, but disregard historical and
[1:51:56] Speaker 2: anthropological analysis. We should apply simply sorry, we should simply
[1:52:02] Speaker 2: start and end with classical classical Catholic theology. How contrived
[1:52:07] Speaker 2: and post hawk rational. So that was I didn't really
[1:52:11] Speaker 2: we didn't really spell that out, but that was kind
[1:52:13] Speaker 2: of where I was going, which is that we've got
[1:52:14] Speaker 2: these classical Catholic ideas of God, and we're just granting
[1:52:19] Speaker 2: that these are the properties of God. But we have
[1:52:21] Speaker 2: no reason to grant those properties.
[1:52:23] Speaker 3: And just says, guest is a doctor of DOUNK.
[1:52:25] Speaker 1: Excuse listen.
[1:52:27] Speaker 2: He was nice, Guys, he was nice. Marcus says, let's
[1:52:30] Speaker 2: not get bogged down in scripture, says the Catholic. If
[1:52:33] Speaker 2: I know anything about Catholics, it is that they don't
[1:52:35] Speaker 2: want to get bogged down in scripture. That's the job
[1:52:37] Speaker 2: of your priest. They don't want to deal with the
[1:52:40] Speaker 2: difficult bits. And she says there's no Catholic view without
[1:52:43] Speaker 2: the scripture. There's no basis without reading and debating the text.
[1:52:46] Speaker 2: I agree. That's why you guys know here I focus
[1:52:50] Speaker 2: on the text. That's what we do here. We focus
[1:52:53] Speaker 2: on what the book says. And Antoine, I hope I
[1:52:56] Speaker 2: said that right. Thank you so much for the ninety
[1:52:58] Speaker 2: nine ninety nine I'm super chat big big w friend.
[1:53:02] Speaker 2: Thank you so much for supporting the stream. Let's get
[1:53:05] Speaker 2: some ws for Antoine. And I apologize if I pronounced
[1:53:08] Speaker 2: the name wrong. And she's coming in against his logical impossibility.
[1:53:11] Speaker 2: One Jesus, fully man and full of God, to Trinity
[1:53:15] Speaker 2: is one God. I agree with you. It doesn't make
[1:53:18] Speaker 2: sense to me. Either God can break the laws of
[1:53:20] Speaker 2: logic or he can't. The Trinity breaks the laws of logic.
[1:53:23] Speaker 2: Chance says limited omniscience.
[1:53:25] Speaker 3: Do you hear yourself?
[1:53:26] Speaker 2: That's what I was saying. If he's not omniscient, then
[1:53:30] Speaker 2: you need a different word. If he's limited in his omniscis,
[1:53:33] Speaker 2: then he's like most sentient but motioned and Asian says,
[1:53:39] Speaker 2: redefining omnipotent to an idea that God isn't that omnipotent
[1:53:43] Speaker 2: is hilarious to the extent. I can't agree with you more.
[1:53:48] Speaker 2: And a chance again, Thank you so much for the
[1:53:50] Speaker 2: superchance chances. He says he can't do things that are
[1:53:52] Speaker 2: logically impossible. Isn't that the definition of a miracle. Actually,
[1:53:55] Speaker 2: that's a good question. Is a miracle logically impossible or
[1:53:58] Speaker 2: is it just like physically imposs I got some questions
[1:54:01] Speaker 2: about that. Actually it's a good thought, though. Josh says,
[1:54:04] Speaker 2: do words mean words? Must be a great teacher. Listen.
[1:54:07] Speaker 2: I read his reviews. He's got great reviews. As a professor.
[1:54:10] Speaker 2: He's probably a decent professor as long as you agree
[1:54:13] Speaker 2: with what he's saying. Right and Alosa says, I have
[1:54:15] Speaker 2: alternative definitions on my side, similar to Trump's alternative facts.
[1:54:21] Speaker 2: And a dry produce says yet another Christian making excuses
[1:54:24] Speaker 2: for God and trying to square a circle. That is
[1:54:28] Speaker 2: kind of the case. Is there a square in the circle?
[1:54:30] Speaker 2: And let me describe a couple more superchats. Friends. I'm
[1:54:33] Speaker 2: going to have a bunch at the end, but i
[1:54:34] Speaker 2: want to get to Another guest says, I'm honored to
[1:54:36] Speaker 2: be named after our igneous Lord and Savior. He is
[1:54:40] Speaker 2: a solid footing we all walk on. Love your work,
[1:54:42] Speaker 2: justin well, Doug Brown, amazing name, and thank you for
[1:54:46] Speaker 2: putting your hope and faith in Doug the rock, the
[1:54:49] Speaker 2: solid foundation, and Hercules says Dawkins, was talking smack on
[1:54:54] Speaker 2: you last night, thoughts Darth Dawkins talks about me endlessly
[1:54:57] Speaker 2: because he's got a man crush on me. Listen, go
[1:54:59] Speaker 2: to his life live stream and just tell them it's
[1:55:02] Speaker 2: okay to come out of the closet. We won't chastise
[1:55:04] Speaker 2: you here. We'll welcome you with arms wide open. If
[1:55:07] Speaker 2: you think I'm cute, Darth just come and say so,
[1:55:09] Speaker 2: tell me I'm pretty, and we can hold hands and
[1:55:11] Speaker 2: we can walk on the beach, and Bookie says, much love,
[1:55:14] Speaker 2: thanks again for helping me shake this bullshit. Also need
[1:55:18] Speaker 2: help with the Discord mods, send me a message please,
[1:55:21] Speaker 2: But I don't know what kind of help you need,
[1:55:23] Speaker 2: but I'm sure the mods can help you. But thank
[1:55:25] Speaker 2: you for joining in for the super chat. And Jason says,
[1:55:28] Speaker 2: are you ready to burn pretzels? Yeah, we are ready
[1:55:31] Speaker 2: to burn pretzels and we're gonna get one coming up here.
[1:55:34] Speaker 3: In just a second.
[1:55:35] Speaker 2: Jim says, why do Christians think that Alma is only
[1:55:37] Speaker 2: used in the Bible to talk about virgins and they
[1:55:39] Speaker 2: use it to say marry is a virgin? Because in
[1:55:42] Speaker 2: the Greek sceptuagen they translate the word Almah into parthenos,
[1:55:45] Speaker 2: and they believe that Parthenos can only refer to a virgin.
[1:55:48] Speaker 2: Therefore Almah must refer to a virgin. But it simply doesn't.
[1:55:52] Speaker 2: And Steve comes again to complain by giving me his money, says,
[1:55:55] Speaker 2: where is your proof these things are wrong? Do you
[1:55:57] Speaker 2: have anything other than supernatural belief they are I don't
[1:56:00] Speaker 2: have any supernatural beliefs.
[1:56:01] Speaker 3: Actually, all my beliefs.
[1:56:02] Speaker 2: Are natural, Steve, you know this, and walking Dad says, sorry, Steve.
[1:56:05] Speaker 2: Morality can easily and objectively be defined as the well
[1:56:09] Speaker 2: being of human beings. Murder, grape, slavery are bad for
[1:56:13] Speaker 2: human well being. I agree that they are bad for
[1:56:17] Speaker 2: well being objectively, I think there's a wider discussion as
[1:56:20] Speaker 2: to whether or not well being is the standard. That's
[1:56:23] Speaker 2: my standard, though, and Atlas says, so excited to finally
[1:56:27] Speaker 2: see you live, though you'll probably cut out as I'm
[1:56:30] Speaker 2: heading out for a hike. If I get the whole time,
[1:56:33] Speaker 2: then praise get you the whole time, and praise well listen,
[1:56:35] Speaker 2: praise Doug, and thank you Atlas for letting me know
[1:56:38] Speaker 2: you're here and for super chatting and support in the stream.
[1:56:40] Speaker 2: And praise Doug. Enjoy your hike. Pick up a little
[1:56:44] Speaker 2: Doug while you're out on the trails. Pick up a
[1:56:46] Speaker 2: Doug and take take Doug with you.
[1:56:49] Speaker 3: And it'll be a little souvenir from Doug.
[1:56:53] Speaker 2: Let's get our next guests from the TikTok que we've
[1:56:57] Speaker 2: got with us now, well, trying to get with us.
[1:57:00] Speaker 2: Face interesting name, enjoyable, should be fun. See if scarface
[1:57:04] Speaker 2: can connect. They've been in the box for a little
[1:57:06] Speaker 2: bit bit, Plain says, is this person a doctor of incredulity?
[1:57:10] Speaker 3: That I kind of where I was getting.
[1:57:12] Speaker 2: I think the problem with the philbros Is that they
[1:57:15] Speaker 2: have a lot of arguments that they assume you're going
[1:57:18] Speaker 2: to accept because all of their filberl arguments. Accept them
[1:57:21] Speaker 2: or friends accept them already, right, But I'm under no
[1:57:24] Speaker 2: compulsion to accept these arguments until you've given me a
[1:57:27] Speaker 2: demonstration that they're true. Mind forged manicle is good to
[1:57:30] Speaker 2: see again, tight, says Sean Carrol has mentioned the quantum
[1:57:33] Speaker 2: maternity theorem as an example of a model of an
[1:57:36] Speaker 2: infinite universe infinite past to infinite future. Yeah, actually, Sean
[1:57:40] Speaker 2: Carol mentioned this also. Ian talks about this one a lot.
[1:57:43] Speaker 2: This is one of Ian's favorite theories, and Ian and
[1:57:47] Speaker 2: I typically agree on most things. I haven't read the
[1:57:50] Speaker 2: quantum maternity theorem though. All right, so scarface cannot connect,
[1:57:54] Speaker 2: So we're going to move to the YouTube queue. Friends,
[1:57:58] Speaker 2: if you're watching on TikTok, you can hit the guts
[1:58:00] Speaker 2: request in the bottom corner of the screen and get
[1:58:04] Speaker 2: in on the conversation. If you're not watching on YouTube,
[1:58:06] Speaker 2: if you're watching on Facebook or YouTube. I'm sorry if
[1:58:10] Speaker 2: you're not watching on TikTok. If you're watching on YouTube
[1:58:12] Speaker 2: or Facebook or elsewhere, you can just go to the
[1:58:15] Speaker 2: link in the description and you can get yourself into
[1:58:18] Speaker 2: the discussion. And with that, we're going to bring in
[1:58:22] Speaker 2: our next guest. It looks like esoteric, Hayes. How you doing, Hayes, Hayes.
[1:58:28] Speaker 2: I think your microphone might be mechanically muted. See Hayes,
[1:58:48] Speaker 2: do you have a mute button for your headset somewhere?
[1:58:51] Speaker 3: Is it accidentally muted?
[1:58:58] Speaker 2: I'm not sure what's happening with his equipment. You might
[1:59:01] Speaker 2: not have your equipment set up right. It might be
[1:59:03] Speaker 2: pulling it from a microphone that doesn't exist. Let me
[1:59:08] Speaker 2: see what microphones you got there? You go, yeah, we
[1:59:12] Speaker 2: got you. Now you've got one place. You've got fifteen
[1:59:15] Speaker 2: microphones on your computer and you're running voice meter. It
[1:59:18] Speaker 2: looks like that's the problem.
[1:59:20] Speaker 1: Yeah.
[1:59:21] Speaker 8: Yeah, I was trying to get it to be a
[1:59:23] Speaker 8: bit more clear, so I didn't blow out your so
[1:59:25] Speaker 8: because it's an old microphone, I didn't want to ruin
[1:59:27] Speaker 8: your stream.
[1:59:28] Speaker 3: No, it's okay.
[1:59:29] Speaker 2: I have a control over all the audio volumes if
[1:59:32] Speaker 2: somebody is like blowing out the guests years, usually somebody
[1:59:35] Speaker 2: shouts at me and I can turn it down.
[1:59:38] Speaker 1: Well, thank you for your patients.
[1:59:42] Speaker 2: So uh me specifically, I.
[1:59:44] Speaker 8: Don't know if this is an invitation only for primarily Christians.
[1:59:48] Speaker 1: I'm not a Christian.
[1:59:49] Speaker 2: No, No, it's for any any discussions on God like,
[1:59:53] Speaker 2: but typically we're going to talk about the god you
[1:59:55] Speaker 2: believe in, so like, if you're not Muslim, I don't
[1:59:58] Speaker 2: want you defending the Musli God. Absolutely, I completely understand that.
[2:00:04] Speaker 4: Me.
[2:00:04] Speaker 1: I'm an ocultist.
[2:00:05] Speaker 8: I am a psychicultural mystic, so I do believe in
[2:00:10] Speaker 8: gods and goddesses, but I think they are all emergent
[2:00:14] Speaker 8: properties of consciousness.
[2:00:15] Speaker 2: Oh boy, can you fill in the blanks for me?
[2:00:18] Speaker 2: How did they emerge from consciousness?
[2:00:21] Speaker 1: Well?
[2:00:21] Speaker 8: I think that we get exposed to concepts and the
[2:00:25] Speaker 8: more that you fixate on them, give power to them,
[2:00:27] Speaker 8: you know, meditate or ritualize it. Eventually, you know that
[2:00:31] Speaker 8: old maxim like if you talk to something long enough,
[2:00:33] Speaker 8: something eventually we'll talk back.
[2:00:35] Speaker 1: It's sort of like that.
[2:00:37] Speaker 8: It's you're giving it some sort of You're giving some
[2:00:40] Speaker 8: sort of engagement to a thought that can then take.
[2:00:44] Speaker 2: On a life of its own eventually, right. But to
[2:00:47] Speaker 2: me this is cause and effect. I think this is
[2:00:50] Speaker 2: a natural product of the world that we live in.
[2:00:52] Speaker 2: I wouldn't say that it was a great supernatural right. So,
[2:00:56] Speaker 2: for example, I don't think that there is a consciousness
[2:01:01] Speaker 2: that exists separate from our brain.
[2:01:05] Speaker 1: I completely agree.
[2:01:06] Speaker 2: I mean, actually I would say that.
[2:01:09] Speaker 8: I'm not sure if we could actually uh no, Okay,
[2:01:12] Speaker 8: I'm not Buddhist, though I love Buddhism, though I love
[2:01:14] Speaker 8: reading on it, so that's something there for me too,
[2:01:17] Speaker 8: I guess. But I would say that, like, I don't
[2:01:20] Speaker 8: think we could definitively say we have like the absolute
[2:01:23] Speaker 8: truth on whether consciousness is like something that permeates us
[2:01:27] Speaker 8: or whatever.
[2:01:28] Speaker 1: I don't know.
[2:01:29] Speaker 8: I'm not going to make definitive claims on that. All
[2:01:31] Speaker 8: I can tell is that what my experience and awareness
[2:01:33] Speaker 8: seems to be and then move on from there. The
[2:01:36] Speaker 8: same thing with the origin of the universe. I don't
[2:01:38] Speaker 8: think that we could actually get back and actually definitively
[2:01:41] Speaker 8: say what's before? What all our tools before, what? All whatever?
[2:01:45] Speaker 8: All our tools do they break down eventually or until
[2:01:49] Speaker 8: we have the means to detect that.
[2:01:50] Speaker 2: I don't think I want to make claims on that
[2:01:52] Speaker 2: fair enough, that's fair. Yeah, I think that is fair. So, like,
[2:01:56] Speaker 2: what would be a good argument or a good reason
[2:02:01] Speaker 2: why somebody would believe that there are like even spirits, right,
[2:02:07] Speaker 2: I think that's a pretty base place to start.
[2:02:09] Speaker 8: Right, Oh, of course, So like if someone were to
[2:02:13] Speaker 8: go into like, let's just say, for example, I'm gonna
[2:02:17] Speaker 8: use the use the spooky house example. You go into
[2:02:20] Speaker 8: like an abandoned place, you go in there, it gives
[2:02:22] Speaker 8: you a bad feeling. You know, we know that a
[2:02:24] Speaker 8: lot of things can influence you. And if you've got
[2:02:26] Speaker 8: some sort of creepy ideas there, and you have strong
[2:02:29] Speaker 8: negative associations with a place, the more and more you
[2:02:31] Speaker 8: visit that place, you might start attributing some sort of
[2:02:36] Speaker 8: autonomous entity being within such a place, or like you
[2:02:39] Speaker 8: might start freaking out a paradolia, which if you give
[2:02:43] Speaker 8: enough power over that, it will freak you out and
[2:02:45] Speaker 8: be good, potentially haunt your dreams and a whole bunch
[2:02:48] Speaker 8: of other shit.
[2:02:49] Speaker 2: But to me, that's not proof that the spirits exists.
[2:02:51] Speaker 2: It's just proof that people believe spirits exist.
[2:02:55] Speaker 1: Well.
[2:02:55] Speaker 8: To me, in my formulation of all of this, and
[2:02:58] Speaker 8: I'm sorry if I'm using like three dollars words, I'm
[2:03:01] Speaker 8: being shitty. U.
[2:03:02] Speaker 3: No, No, you're being great so far.
[2:03:03] Speaker 1: Don't worry. Yeah.
[2:03:05] Speaker 8: My thing is that I don't necessarily think external spirits
[2:03:09] Speaker 8: or anything like that exists. I think that these are
[2:03:11] Speaker 8: things that human beings tend to assign to locations and
[2:03:14] Speaker 8: shit that we have some of this and science where
[2:03:17] Speaker 8: like if you'll, if you'll create like a thought palace
[2:03:20] Speaker 8: in your head, like you make like a mental layout
[2:03:22] Speaker 8: of your house and you'll walk around, you can leave
[2:03:26] Speaker 8: thoughts in specific locations. So like, if you put enough
[2:03:29] Speaker 8: impression there mentally, and you'll like open up a draord
[2:03:32] Speaker 8: like well, and here's my entire catalog of Moby Dick
[2:03:35] Speaker 8: that I know eventually you'll start to recall a Mobe
[2:03:37] Speaker 8: Dick opening up that drawer every time you open up
[2:03:39] Speaker 8: that draw in your house. This is something that the
[2:03:42] Speaker 8: FBI actually teaches people.
[2:03:45] Speaker 2: So, but happening stuff in your brain, right, I think.
[2:03:50] Speaker 1: It happens within your conscious awareness.
[2:03:52] Speaker 8: Whether that's purely an emergent property of the brain or not,
[2:03:55] Speaker 8: I think is irrelevant.
[2:03:56] Speaker 1: I think that's just yeah, it's in there.
[2:03:58] Speaker 2: Yeah, So that's what I'm suggest thing is the stuff
[2:04:00] Speaker 2: that you're attributing to spirits I would attribute to the brain.
[2:04:04] Speaker 2: So I guess the thing I'm trying to figure out
[2:04:07] Speaker 2: is if there's a good reason to attribute it to
[2:04:09] Speaker 2: a spirit as opposed to the brain, what would that
[2:04:13] Speaker 2: good reason be.
[2:04:14] Speaker 8: I think a spirit the term spirit is just a label.
[2:04:17] Speaker 8: I think that it is whatever that experience or that
[2:04:20] Speaker 8: autonomous creep factor that you would like to sign it.
[2:04:25] Speaker 8: In the example of that spooky ass house that I'm
[2:04:27] Speaker 8: talking about, you would lay out this image of something
[2:04:30] Speaker 8: being there, because the more and more you go there,
[2:04:32] Speaker 8: the more unsettlesed you become. Eventually you come back through there,
[2:04:35] Speaker 8: maybe like sometimes something will fall over because it's like
[2:04:38] Speaker 8: whend going to the house or something like that. Eventually,
[2:04:41] Speaker 8: these associations will become some sort of mental entity that
[2:04:46] Speaker 8: will just be a natural product of your mind right,
[2:04:49] Speaker 8: but will be there and will freak you the fuck out,
[2:04:52] Speaker 8: and somebody else will walk through the same space and
[2:04:53] Speaker 8: not have the same issue at all because they're not
[2:04:55] Speaker 8: afraid of things like that.
[2:04:57] Speaker 2: Well, I don't think they're there, is what I'm suggesting.
[2:04:59] Speaker 2: I'm saying people are using visual cues to recall memories.
[2:05:04] Speaker 2: This is a natural thing that the brain does.
[2:05:08] Speaker 8: Yeah, so I would say that, like the entity is
[2:05:10] Speaker 8: a bye by entity. I mean like I'm talking about
[2:05:14] Speaker 8: the spirit in question. Like whatever we would label as
[2:05:16] Speaker 8: a spirit. I think that it does exist, but it
[2:05:19] Speaker 8: exists primarily within your conscious awareness. It's not in the location.
[2:05:23] Speaker 8: Like you don't actually objectively put a spirit into location.
[2:05:27] Speaker 8: It is something that you are going to mentally associate
[2:05:30] Speaker 8: with a location.
[2:05:32] Speaker 2: Okay, So then it sounds to me and I could
[2:05:34] Speaker 2: be wrong, and I don't want to be the one
[2:05:36] Speaker 2: to break the news to you, but I think you're
[2:05:38] Speaker 2: an angeist.
[2:05:41] Speaker 1: I mean not.
[2:05:43] Speaker 8: I mean like I do not believe in an external
[2:05:47] Speaker 8: god as far as it I mean, I'm not opposed
[2:05:49] Speaker 8: to the idea, but I do I do. I am religious.
[2:05:54] Speaker 8: I still will give power over to the psychoicultural entities
[2:05:58] Speaker 8: whatever they are in my mind, Like I'll pray to
[2:05:59] Speaker 8: Zoom or whatever or any god that strikes my fancy
[2:06:03] Speaker 8: and that I believe is good for my mental well being.
[2:06:05] Speaker 8: And I do think that there's some sort of association
[2:06:08] Speaker 8: there once you give that back and forth, that eventually
[2:06:11] Speaker 8: there is some sort of unconscious conversation happening with your
[2:06:14] Speaker 8: conscious you know.
[2:06:15] Speaker 2: No, I'm agreeing with you that we have like a
[2:06:19] Speaker 2: placebo effect when we pray to God. But you don't
[2:06:22] Speaker 2: believe that Zeus exists, like there's not a guy in
[2:06:24] Speaker 2: the sky throwing lightning bolts. Well, I believe he exists
[2:06:28] Speaker 2: cycle culturally, which psycle culturally is just you know, and
[2:06:34] Speaker 2: a mental association in the minds of people. And the
[2:06:37] Speaker 2: coolest thing about this is that you get a bunch
[2:06:39] Speaker 2: of people together who believe in a single God, they
[2:06:42] Speaker 2: will have this consciousness overlap and they can have experiences
[2:06:46] Speaker 2: like let's say, all right, so the Lady of Guadalupe
[2:06:49] Speaker 2: or whatever, like those big micros EVENTSA if you examine
[2:06:52] Speaker 2: it just doesn't really hold water. Let me ask, maybe,
[2:06:55] Speaker 2: I think a question that might cut to the chase.
[2:06:58] Speaker 2: If every human at midnight passed away, every human on
[2:07:03] Speaker 2: the earth, let's say we all passed away, none of
[2:07:05] Speaker 2: us exists at twelve oh one, Does zoos still exist?
[2:07:09] Speaker 1: I think? Hmm?
[2:07:11] Speaker 8: So like in this way, I would say that every
[2:07:13] Speaker 8: psychic cultural entity that relies purely on the conscious experience
[2:07:17] Speaker 8: of human beings would cease to exist.
[2:07:19] Speaker 2: There you are, Okay, that's what we need to know, Okay,
[2:07:20] Speaker 2: you're an atheist, my friend, welcome to the club. Well,
[2:07:24] Speaker 2: an external atheist.
[2:07:25] Speaker 8: If we want to call me that, I wouldn't use
[2:07:28] Speaker 8: that turned off because I would say I'm more agnostic
[2:07:30] Speaker 8: on the idea of something actually being there.
[2:07:32] Speaker 1: I can't.
[2:07:32] Speaker 8: I can't definitively say that there isn't some sort of
[2:07:35] Speaker 8: deistic expansion, or if there isn't something that's like a
[2:07:39] Speaker 8: lot more stranger, we haven't like contemplated or like formulated yet.
[2:07:44] Speaker 1: I can't.
[2:07:45] Speaker 8: I can't say that with any honesty. Okay, But what
[2:07:47] Speaker 8: I could say is that, like the way that I
[2:07:49] Speaker 8: look at these things, I'm just how do I explain
[2:07:52] Speaker 8: my experience, how to explain my quality when it comes
[2:07:55] Speaker 8: to worship and ritual and things like that. And this
[2:07:59] Speaker 8: seems to be how it's formulated. And it's not purely
[2:08:03] Speaker 8: with me either. This is something that actually sort of
[2:08:05] Speaker 8: has a tradition.
[2:08:06] Speaker 2: So, oh, I agree with you.
[2:08:07] Speaker 1: I think it's fascinating.
[2:08:08] Speaker 2: Well, I think the more we drill down on it,
[2:08:10] Speaker 2: the more we realize that we probably do agree. These
[2:08:12] Speaker 2: are psychosocial ideas that are shared in the human culture,
[2:08:16] Speaker 2: but they're not external entities that exist independent of the
[2:08:21] Speaker 2: human mind, there are subjective entities, not objective entities, and
[2:08:26] Speaker 2: so in that case, you and I probably agree. I
[2:08:28] Speaker 2: think I'm going to move on to the next theist
[2:08:31] Speaker 2: and see see where they're at. But thanks for coming up.
[2:08:34] Speaker 2: That's Derek, and thanks for being kind to me.
[2:08:37] Speaker 1: Thank you, justin you have a great day.
[2:08:38] Speaker 2: Truth what a nice guy. It sounds to me like
[2:08:45] Speaker 2: Jordan Peterson would have enjoyed that conversation. Like the mental
[2:08:51] Speaker 2: or the metaphysical substrate of the social reality that we
[2:08:57] Speaker 2: live in. Mind Forged Manical says, it's mathematically possible, but
[2:09:01] Speaker 2: not physically interesting, considering calculus works in physics, and calculus
[2:09:05] Speaker 2: requires infinity to make sense. Actually, I mean it's funny
[2:09:10] Speaker 2: that if math is objectively true and in math we
[2:09:14] Speaker 2: have infinities, it just seems that is objectively true to
[2:09:17] Speaker 2: have infinities. I could be wrong. Mind Forge come in
[2:09:20] Speaker 2: and again says I agree with your premises and the
[2:09:23] Speaker 2: logic is valid, but I disliked the conclusion Christian, I
[2:09:29] Speaker 2: think you're right. Actually, And injury injury, I almost thought
[2:09:35] Speaker 2: you said injure me when I was reading it, which
[2:09:38] Speaker 2: is a name of a real ancient king from a
[2:09:40] Speaker 2: la lach It says, great discussion. Thanks for making this possible. Well,
[2:09:44] Speaker 2: thank you for supporting, because it's supporters like you that
[2:09:47] Speaker 2: make these streams possible. And Mike says, guest argument is
[2:09:50] Speaker 2: based on implied incredulity, and I think you're right. I
[2:09:54] Speaker 2: think that's kind of there's a lot of incredulity. I
[2:09:57] Speaker 2: think the reason for that was because these arguments work
[2:10:00] Speaker 2: really well when you're talking to other believers. In the minute,
[2:10:04] Speaker 2: you're not talking to a non believer, and they push
[2:10:06] Speaker 2: back on the ideas you're incredulous. No, people just they
[2:10:11] Speaker 2: disagree with these premisses. Why are you disagreeing with me? Right?
[2:10:13] Speaker 2: And then they can't figure out a good reason to
[2:10:15] Speaker 2: defend the actual premisses. And Zech says, so everything is
[2:10:18] Speaker 2: contingent except for your God. I think there's a name
[2:10:21] Speaker 2: for that. Yeah, it's called special bleeding. Thank you Zach
[2:10:24] Speaker 2: for the nine ninety nine big w friend, and Noodle,
[2:10:26] Speaker 2: thank you so much for the supertest, says I love
[2:10:28] Speaker 2: all these uber intellectual Christians who come on to defend
[2:10:31] Speaker 2: their God and start babbling about DEAs creator God and
[2:10:34] Speaker 2: not the biblical God. That's that's the point. And I
[2:10:36] Speaker 2: actually told them in email because we had some email
[2:10:39] Speaker 2: dialogue before he came in that like, I'm interested in
[2:10:41] Speaker 2: talking about your specific God, not a deistic god. You
[2:10:44] Speaker 2: don't believe in the deistic God. I want to talk
[2:10:46] Speaker 2: about your God. So he did know that coming in.
[2:10:49] Speaker 2: And the Christian atheist interesting name. Thank you for the
[2:10:51] Speaker 2: supertest says God can be infinite, but the reality of
[2:10:54] Speaker 2: the universe can't be. That's what I was saying. Why
[2:10:57] Speaker 2: is it that you special plead for God being infinite
[2:10:59] Speaker 2: but not the thing that we already know exists? And
[2:11:02] Speaker 2: Krill says, finally became a member. You're now one extremely
[2:11:06] Speaker 2: small step closer to becoming Hella rich Well, thank you
[2:11:09] Speaker 2: so much for the one twenty nine SUK super appreciate it. Friend.
[2:11:13] Speaker 2: Thank you for supporting the channel, and for those not
[2:11:15] Speaker 2: on YouTube or TikTok that can subscribe. I now have
[2:11:18] Speaker 2: the Patreon in my profile. And Zach says, thank you
[2:11:22] Speaker 2: for the super chap. By the way, Zach, I really
[2:11:24] Speaker 2: appreciate that, says, how does a doctor not understand special pleading? Also,
[2:11:27] Speaker 2: what does it mean to exist for zero seconds outset
[2:11:30] Speaker 2: of time? Makes no sense? I agree, Zach. The concept
[2:11:34] Speaker 2: of being outset of time didn't make sense to me,
[2:11:36] Speaker 2: even when I was a Christian. Even as a Christian,
[2:11:38] Speaker 2: I was like, now, it seems more logical that God
[2:11:40] Speaker 2: just always existed in time. The fact that there's outset
[2:11:44] Speaker 2: of time is too inconsistent logically for me. And thank
[2:11:47] Speaker 2: you for the six sixty sixth Della says, has anyone
[2:11:49] Speaker 2: ever done math on how long Moses would need to
[2:11:51] Speaker 2: keep his hands raised for two point five million people
[2:11:54] Speaker 2: to cross the Red Sea while he parted it. That's
[2:11:56] Speaker 2: a good question, and I've gotten even better.
[2:12:00] Speaker 3: What a one for you?
[2:12:01] Speaker 2: If you read Exes chapter seventeen. Another interesting thing happens
[2:12:05] Speaker 2: with Moses's arms. He holds up his arms as they
[2:12:09] Speaker 2: fight against the Amalekites, and every time his arms get tired,
[2:12:13] Speaker 2: God allows the Amalekites to start winning the war, so
[2:12:16] Speaker 2: they have to prop his arms up so that the
[2:12:18] Speaker 2: Amalekites don't win the war. What a crazy, capricious, bullshit
[2:12:23] Speaker 2: thing for God to do. Every time a guy's arms
[2:12:27] Speaker 2: get tired, he allows his own people to get slaughtered
[2:12:30] Speaker 2: by their enemies. That's insane. That that's insanity to me.
[2:12:34] Speaker 2: All right, Jason's been waiting the longest so we're gonna
[2:12:37] Speaker 2: get Jason in here, and then we've got saucy nugs
[2:12:41] Speaker 2: after Jason. It looks like, Jason, are you with us?
[2:12:45] Speaker 2: I am welcome in Jason, Jason, are you at least eighteen?
[2:12:49] Speaker 2: And are you believer? I am at least eighteen, well
[2:12:54] Speaker 2: way over eighteen. And my my God.
[2:13:01] Speaker 1: Is Joe Burrow.
[2:13:02] Speaker 2: So I guess I don't believe in the typical god,
[2:13:08] Speaker 2: but I do have some questions for you. All right,
[2:13:10] Speaker 2: So you're not a god believer, then no, and I'm
[2:13:15] Speaker 2: not well listen, Jason, this is a short stream.
[2:13:17] Speaker 3: I'm just doing debates.
[2:13:19] Speaker 2: I'm sorry you've been waiting all this time, but hit
[2:13:22] Speaker 2: me up on DM me on discord with your questions.
[2:13:24] Speaker 3: I answer them.
[2:13:26] Speaker 2: Yeah, I got you.
[2:13:27] Speaker 4: You should have two books come in this afternoon.
[2:13:29] Speaker 2: Oh big w Thank you so much, Jason. I love
[2:13:32] Speaker 2: answering questions. I love interacting with the people, but during
[2:13:36] Speaker 2: the summer I don't have a lot of time to stream.
[2:13:39] Speaker 2: So when I am streaming, I'm keeping it. I got
[2:13:42] Speaker 2: to keep it just to the debates, you know what
[2:13:43] Speaker 2: I mean?
[2:13:44] Speaker 1: Sure, and this probably would be better on sayers in
[2:13:50] Speaker 1: the Bible study. I guess.
[2:13:52] Speaker 2: Yeah, but nevertheless, I you know, once my schedule cools off,
[2:13:58] Speaker 2: I'll be doing some Q and A and some other
[2:14:00] Speaker 2: things like that where you know, questions are abundant and welcome.
[2:14:04] Speaker 1: You know, sounds good.
[2:14:06] Speaker 2: All right, thanks Jason, Sorry about that, No prime cheers, friend, cheers.
[2:14:12] Speaker 1: Hey, Justin, I'm sorry.
[2:14:14] Speaker 4: I thought I heard you say you're writing people up
[2:14:17] Speaker 4: for questions.
[2:14:18] Speaker 1: I can drop.
[2:14:20] Speaker 3: I wasn't sorry, I go, but I'll go. It's good
[2:14:22] Speaker 3: to see you, buddy.
[2:14:24] Speaker 1: Good to see it too, Justin.
[2:14:25] Speaker 3: I hope you're doing well.
[2:14:27] Speaker 1: No, I'm okay. I'm okay. Do you mind if I
[2:14:30] Speaker 1: did ask a question?
[2:14:31] Speaker 2: Because I can drop if you want a debate, I mean,
[2:14:33] Speaker 2: I've got I don't have a ton of time left
[2:14:37] Speaker 2: in the stream. I've got I've got to end. I
[2:14:40] Speaker 2: got to stop debating in about thirty minutes and then
[2:14:43] Speaker 2: get through all the super chats that people so kindly
[2:14:46] Speaker 2: sent me. So I got like just enough time for
[2:14:49] Speaker 2: for like one more guest to come up and debate.
[2:14:51] Speaker 1: You know, gotcha, I will drop. Everybody, be well, everybody
[2:14:55] Speaker 1: have a good day.
[2:14:55] Speaker 3: All right, love you man, take care? All right, Saucy nugs.
[2:15:02] Speaker 2: Was I promised to come in next, we're gonna get
[2:15:04] Speaker 2: saucy nugs in here, or we're gonna try What up?
[2:15:09] Speaker 1: Man?
[2:15:09] Speaker 3: How you doing saucy?
[2:15:11] Speaker 1: I'm good, I'm thirty nine. How you doing good?
[2:15:14] Speaker 3: Thank you for asking? Which God do you believe?
[2:15:15] Speaker 2: In?
[2:15:16] Speaker 1: Nugs? I am a Christian theist.
[2:15:20] Speaker 2: Cool would be the most compelling evidence or argument for
[2:15:24] Speaker 2: the Christian God being real?
[2:15:26] Speaker 1: Well, there's a lot to ask. Is it cool if
[2:15:30] Speaker 1: I ask you a question?
[2:15:32] Speaker 2: I mean, you're welcome to, but I'm gonna redirect a
[2:15:35] Speaker 2: conversation back to where it started.
[2:15:37] Speaker 1: That's fine. I think this is why I opened the
[2:15:42] Speaker 1: door to theism is the because I used to be
[2:15:44] Speaker 1: an opposite of you. I used to be an atheist.
[2:15:49] Speaker 1: So as an atheist, do you believe that you'll only
[2:15:52] Speaker 1: exists is the material physical reality?
[2:15:55] Speaker 2: Right, as far as I can tell, the only thing
[2:15:57] Speaker 2: that exists is the material reality. It's possible that there
[2:16:01] Speaker 2: is an immaterial thing that exists. I've never heard a
[2:16:05] Speaker 2: good argument or good evidence for immaterial thing existing.
[2:16:10] Speaker 1: Okay, so you would say everything that exists is physical, reducible,
[2:16:16] Speaker 1: just physical stuff as.
[2:16:18] Speaker 2: Far as I can tell, Like, if all physical things
[2:16:20] Speaker 2: disappeared tomorrow, then my viewpoint is that all things would
[2:16:24] Speaker 2: be gone.
[2:16:26] Speaker 1: Okay, yeah, and that's that's naturalism. That's usual atheists believe.
[2:16:29] Speaker 1: Some atheists are nuanced and that stuff. So I was
[2:16:31] Speaker 1: just curious, would you say, so, do you believe in
[2:16:36] Speaker 1: like determinism?
[2:16:38] Speaker 2: I don't even know what that is.
[2:16:40] Speaker 1: How do you think physical states like go about in
[2:16:43] Speaker 1: the universe? Do you think they're deterministically going to happen? Like,
[2:16:47] Speaker 1: you know, the sun hit this rock, so therefore the
[2:16:49] Speaker 1: physics is going to hit this thing and this thing.
[2:16:52] Speaker 1: And if we had infinite knowledge, we could predict the future.
[2:16:57] Speaker 2: I mean, if we have infinite knowledge, I would imagine
[2:17:00] Speaker 2: and we be able to predict the future because we
[2:17:01] Speaker 2: would have knowledge of the future. I think that's just
[2:17:04] Speaker 2: implied in.
[2:17:05] Speaker 1: The infinite knowledge of maybe not infinite knowledge of the future,
[2:17:08] Speaker 1: but infinite knowledge of things that are now, and using physics,
[2:17:12] Speaker 1: the laws of physics, we could deduct the future.
[2:17:16] Speaker 2: No, I don't think. Well, if we knew everything about
[2:17:21] Speaker 2: the present, right, if we knew everything there ever could
[2:17:24] Speaker 2: be known about the present moment, and we had infinite
[2:17:27] Speaker 2: computational power, could repredict the outcome of everything for the
[2:17:33] Speaker 2: next thirty seconds. I mean, maybe I think it's a
[2:17:35] Speaker 2: good theoretical question, But like, I don't spend a whole
[2:17:40] Speaker 2: lot of time worrying about determinism because I don't think
[2:17:43] Speaker 2: it affects my worldview.
[2:17:45] Speaker 1: So are you just not sure about determinism? Because usually
[2:17:49] Speaker 1: most atheists I've interacted with are physical determinists. They believe,
[2:17:54] Speaker 1: Oh I don't, I don't have pain of reaction, I
[2:17:58] Speaker 1: don't have What would the alternative.
[2:18:01] Speaker 2: Be to what determinism?
[2:18:03] Speaker 1: Determinism?
[2:18:05] Speaker 2: Obviously nondeterminism. Again, this is not a philosophy live stream,
[2:18:10] Speaker 2: so like, if you have like philosophy jargon, you need
[2:18:15] Speaker 2: to actually spell it out what you're trying to get at,
[2:18:16] Speaker 2: because no one here cares what these terms mean.
[2:18:20] Speaker 1: Oh okay, all right, okay, So if everything is physical
[2:18:25] Speaker 1: and things behave deterministically in a physical way, and every
[2:18:30] Speaker 1: single thing in reality is reducible to physical stuff, all
[2:18:34] Speaker 1: of your brain conscious states are also the same physical stuff.
[2:18:38] Speaker 2: Right, Well, yeah, I believe that our brain states are
[2:18:41] Speaker 2: based on our physical brains. And again I accept this
[2:18:45] Speaker 2: because there's no evidence to the contrary. If you have
[2:18:48] Speaker 2: evidence to the contrary, you're welcome to present it. Now,
[2:18:51] Speaker 2: these typical I mean, these arguments typically go the way
[2:18:54] Speaker 2: of you don't like my position, therefore it can't be true. Well, listen,
[2:18:58] Speaker 2: you cannot like my position. All you want the question
[2:19:01] Speaker 2: is can you demonstrate your position.
[2:19:03] Speaker 3: To be true?
[2:19:04] Speaker 2: And so, for example, I hear this argument a lot
[2:19:07] Speaker 2: because philosophy bros come up and they still think in
[2:19:10] Speaker 2: twenty twenty five that tag is a good argument. And
[2:19:13] Speaker 2: then I watched them flounder for an hour trying to
[2:19:15] Speaker 2: demonstrate that there's even one transcendental thing that exists, and
[2:19:19] Speaker 2: they can never demonstrate that it exists. And then they
[2:19:21] Speaker 2: turn to morality. They so, well, I don't like subjective morality,
[2:19:24] Speaker 2: therefore objective morality must be true.
[2:19:27] Speaker 3: These are all great.
[2:19:28] Speaker 1: Like if you don't like I'm not trying to go
[2:19:30] Speaker 1: down that road.
[2:19:31] Speaker 2: Right, If you don't like the viewpoint that I have,
[2:19:34] Speaker 2: then give me, give me a reason why your viewpoint
[2:19:37] Speaker 2: is better.
[2:19:39] Speaker 1: Yeah, I agree. So I was hoping maybe you'd have
[2:19:42] Speaker 1: some type of a view of determinism, because usually that's
[2:19:49] Speaker 1: the atheist, you know, standard, you know, default position, but
[2:19:54] Speaker 1: just because that's just how they usually are. So my
[2:19:59] Speaker 1: only poin it is if your brain states, your conscious
[2:20:03] Speaker 1: states the things you believe in. All the things you
[2:20:06] Speaker 1: lack belief in are ultimately just reducible to physical stuff,
[2:20:11] Speaker 1: and physical stuff behaves deterministically or indeterministically. How do you
[2:20:16] Speaker 1: know what you believe is actually true?
[2:20:19] Speaker 2: Well, when we use the word true, we're talking about
[2:20:22] Speaker 2: things that are in accordance to reality. So if I
[2:20:24] Speaker 2: said it's true that I've got two hands, and you're
[2:20:27] Speaker 2: all looking at me, and you're like, well, shit, I
[2:20:29] Speaker 2: see two hands. They look like they're connected to his body. Therefore,
[2:20:32] Speaker 2: the statement justin has true hands appears to be true.
[2:20:35] Speaker 2: We're just making observation using the tools we have available.
[2:20:40] Speaker 1: Sure, but isn't that you isn't me interpreting that you
[2:20:43] Speaker 1: have two hands? Me using like logic and interpreting the
[2:20:48] Speaker 1: data to say, hey, this is what the evidence points
[2:20:51] Speaker 1: to this reality.
[2:20:53] Speaker 2: I don't think you even need logic for that. You
[2:20:55] Speaker 2: just need to look and say, I see two hands,
[2:20:58] Speaker 2: therefore true.
[2:21:01] Speaker 1: Okay, So like, but we do need to use logic
[2:21:04] Speaker 1: for some things, right, like.
[2:21:06] Speaker 2: Sure, Like, yeah, I understand the three laws of logic
[2:21:10] Speaker 2: are going to apply when determining if that claim is true.
[2:21:13] Speaker 2: I get that. But I'm saying, is the level of
[2:21:16] Speaker 2: logic is like as base as it possibly.
[2:21:18] Speaker 1: Could be true. Sure, but like if you if if
[2:21:22] Speaker 1: your beliefs and mental states or whatever, the belief that
[2:21:26] Speaker 1: you have two hands is ultimately reducible to just purely
[2:21:30] Speaker 1: physical stuff, and physical stuff just behaves, you know, cause
[2:21:35] Speaker 1: and effect, chains of events. All of your brain states,
[2:21:39] Speaker 1: all of your mental states are just purely physical and
[2:21:44] Speaker 1: they're mindless, physical reactions that happen not because of anything
[2:21:47] Speaker 1: you choose to do.
[2:21:49] Speaker 2: Yeah, we know, we know the consequences of the argument
[2:21:53] Speaker 2: I'm asking you. Can you demonstrate that that's not the case.
[2:21:58] Speaker 1: No, No, I'm not demonstrating anything. I'm saying if.
[2:22:01] Speaker 2: Well, well, hold on, hold on, dog, I'm going to
[2:22:03] Speaker 2: I'm gonna pause you here because I think you're wasting
[2:22:05] Speaker 2: everyone's time. Right, All you're saying is that is that
[2:22:08] Speaker 2: you don't like my worldview, Like you don't like the
[2:22:10] Speaker 2: idea that I'm saying.
[2:22:12] Speaker 3: That it's only physicalism.
[2:22:14] Speaker 2: Right, So if you believe that there's something outside of physicalism,
[2:22:18] Speaker 2: do you have a rational reason to believe it.
[2:22:21] Speaker 1: I'm only saying that if if, if physicalism is true,
[2:22:26] Speaker 1: how do you epistemically justify any belief you have? If
[2:22:30] Speaker 1: every single belief you have is ultimately determined or indetermined
[2:22:34] Speaker 1: by a chain of physical events that you have no
[2:22:37] Speaker 1: control over. I'm saying that I never said.
[2:22:40] Speaker 2: That we didn't have any control over it. I said
[2:22:42] Speaker 2: I don't have an opinion on determinism. And I'm asking
[2:22:45] Speaker 2: you hold on. I'm asking you, if you believe I'm wrong,
[2:22:49] Speaker 2: if you believe that somehow there is some sort of
[2:22:52] Speaker 2: non physical existence, what's the argument for it? Because all
[2:22:56] Speaker 2: you're saying right now is you don't like the argument
[2:22:58] Speaker 2: that it's.
[2:22:59] Speaker 1: Just physical stuff. I'm saying that. I'm just saying, hey,
[2:23:03] Speaker 1: if if your worldview is true.
[2:23:05] Speaker 3: Oh well, so let's try this again.
[2:23:07] Speaker 2: Dropping do you have an argument that lands on non
[2:23:11] Speaker 2: physical things existing?
[2:23:14] Speaker 1: Well, okay, I guess we're just going to skip the
[2:23:16] Speaker 1: idea that, like, hey, if physicalism is true, you have
[2:23:19] Speaker 1: no epistemic justification.
[2:23:20] Speaker 2: Well, I'm trying to get you to understand that what
[2:23:23] Speaker 2: you're doing here is you're not actually providing an argument
[2:23:26] Speaker 2: for your worldview. You're doing the typical presup thing, which
[2:23:30] Speaker 2: is I don't like your worldview, therefore I insert mine.
[2:23:33] Speaker 2: As soon as I find a whole Most snugs stop
[2:23:36] Speaker 2: talking while I'm talking. You're saying that you don't like
[2:23:39] Speaker 2: my worldview, and therefore, if you can find a whole
[2:23:42] Speaker 2: or something in my worldview that's unpleasing to you mentally
[2:23:45] Speaker 2: or emotionally, or even logically, then you're just going to
[2:23:49] Speaker 2: insert your worldview in.
[2:23:51] Speaker 3: Place, all right.
[2:23:52] Speaker 2: I told you I don't have an opinion on whether
[2:23:55] Speaker 2: or not everything is completely determined.
[2:23:57] Speaker 3: I don't know.
[2:23:58] Speaker 2: It's not something I've studied, it's not something I care about.
[2:24:01] Speaker 2: It doesn't affect whether or not I'm able to look
[2:24:03] Speaker 2: at the world and observe what is true and what
[2:24:06] Speaker 2: is not true. I have the case. I mean, I
[2:24:08] Speaker 2: have the power. I'm capable of doing it right. So
[2:24:12] Speaker 2: I'm asking the question, if there is something like a
[2:24:15] Speaker 2: god or spirits or many gods, I don't care, is
[2:24:19] Speaker 2: there an argument? Is there evidence for that being the case?
[2:24:23] Speaker 3: That's what I'm asking.
[2:24:24] Speaker 2: So if you don't have an argument or evidence for
[2:24:27] Speaker 2: that being the case, it sounds to me like you're
[2:24:30] Speaker 2: just a pre supper wasting time.
[2:24:32] Speaker 1: So it sounds to me like you agree with me
[2:24:34] Speaker 1: that you are not just reducible to physical stuff. You
[2:24:37] Speaker 1: can look at the evidence logically.
[2:24:39] Speaker 3: I didn't agree with you.
[2:24:40] Speaker 1: Hey, you, so you don't think you can look at
[2:24:44] Speaker 1: evidence and deduce way which is actual reality and what's not.
[2:24:47] Speaker 2: What I'm saying is we can use our powers of
[2:24:50] Speaker 2: observation and make statements that something is in accordance with
[2:24:54] Speaker 2: what we think is objectively true and something that's not
[2:24:57] Speaker 2: in accordance with it that we use. It's something that
[2:25:01] Speaker 2: we can do. We have that capability of doing it.
[2:25:03] Speaker 2: So that's why we're asking is there an argument or
[2:25:07] Speaker 2: evidence that ends in God? Because then we can actually
[2:25:11] Speaker 2: test it. We can use our powers of observation and
[2:25:14] Speaker 2: ask ourselves, is it in fact true that God exists?
[2:25:19] Speaker 1: One hundred percent? I agree with you. I'm saying that
[2:25:21] Speaker 1: that ability to look at evidence in logic and reason
[2:25:25] Speaker 1: and come to true beliefs or not true beliefs, have
[2:25:28] Speaker 1: rational discussions, I think implies that we have some type
[2:25:32] Speaker 1: of will detached from our physical processes, that we can
[2:25:35] Speaker 1: rise above our environment or a chain and reaction of
[2:25:39] Speaker 1: physical causes and say, hey, look, God does exist or
[2:25:42] Speaker 1: God doesn't exist because X y Z. I'm saying under physicalism,
[2:25:46] Speaker 1: you don't have that option.
[2:25:48] Speaker 3: No, I agree.
[2:25:49] Speaker 2: Under physicalism, I don't believe that there are immaterial things. Right,
[2:25:53] Speaker 2: So the will is a product of the brain, and
[2:25:56] Speaker 2: it dies when the brain dies. Now, if in fact
[2:26:00] Speaker 2: you think that's not the case, If in fact you
[2:26:02] Speaker 2: think there are things that exist that are acting on
[2:26:06] Speaker 2: the brain, not a product of the brain, then give
[2:26:09] Speaker 2: me the argument for the thing existing.
[2:26:12] Speaker 1: Okay, I'll move on. So it sounds like you would
[2:26:14] Speaker 1: agree with me that with epistemic justification is a huge
[2:26:18] Speaker 1: question mark under physicalism.
[2:26:20] Speaker 2: So I don't listen dropping nugs. I told you already.
[2:26:24] Speaker 2: We don't use those words here. I don't even know
[2:26:26] Speaker 2: what epistemic justification means. Again, I know that these arguments
[2:26:31] Speaker 2: sound great when you're talking to your friends in philosophy.
[2:26:34] Speaker 2: You're not in philosophy class here. So if you want
[2:26:38] Speaker 2: people to care about what you're saying, just use words
[2:26:40] Speaker 2: that people know.
[2:26:42] Speaker 1: How do we know something is true if all of
[2:26:44] Speaker 1: our reasons for getting to that truth claim is just
[2:26:48] Speaker 1: reducible to physical processes we have zero control over. I'm
[2:26:52] Speaker 1: saying that we can get to beliefs that we know
[2:26:55] Speaker 1: are rational because we use our free will to look
[2:26:58] Speaker 1: at evidence, to look at logic and say, reasonably, what
[2:27:02] Speaker 1: is the true proposition that lines up our true statement
[2:27:06] Speaker 1: that lines up with reality. I think that only can
[2:27:08] Speaker 1: exist if there's something immaterial about us.
[2:27:12] Speaker 2: Well, I first of all, I don't know if that's
[2:27:14] Speaker 2: the case, But second of all, that has nothing to
[2:27:16] Speaker 2: do with God.
[2:27:18] Speaker 1: I agree, it's just if there.
[2:27:19] Speaker 3: If it has nothing to do with God, then then
[2:27:21] Speaker 3: why do I care?
[2:27:22] Speaker 1: Well, I should say I disagree it does have something
[2:27:25] Speaker 1: to do with God. If there is an immaterial part
[2:27:28] Speaker 1: of us, our mind is immaterial. We're saying there's immaterial
[2:27:33] Speaker 1: minds that exist God.
[2:27:36] Speaker 2: There's the argument is.
[2:27:38] Speaker 1: An immaterial mind, He's just the grounding of logic reason.
[2:27:43] Speaker 2: So again I would be waiting for the argument or
[2:27:47] Speaker 2: the evidence that immaterial minds exist. And it sounds like
[2:27:50] Speaker 2: you want them to exist, but you don't have any
[2:27:53] Speaker 2: evidence of the exist.
[2:27:54] Speaker 1: I could give you some reasons, I usually just I
[2:27:56] Speaker 1: think that like the undercutting what, I don't want to
[2:27:59] Speaker 1: use it. So I think essentially that if physical under
[2:28:03] Speaker 1: my belief, if physicalism is the case, that there's just
[2:28:06] Speaker 1: natural stuff, then your beliefs are just reduced both to
[2:28:08] Speaker 1: natural events. You have no control over what you believe.
[2:28:11] Speaker 1: Now they're neuroscientists. We have this thing called downward causation.
[2:28:15] Speaker 1: So if we are our far consciousness, I assume maybe
[2:28:19] Speaker 1: you think your consciousness just emerges from physical brain states.
[2:28:25] Speaker 1: So how would an emergent property be able to change
[2:28:30] Speaker 1: the chemical or the physical brain states. So essentially in
[2:28:34] Speaker 1: like cognitive behavioral therapy. And you know, if we focus,
[2:28:39] Speaker 1: we know that our focus actually changes our brain chemistry
[2:28:44] Speaker 1: and not just hey, you know you take a pill
[2:28:46] Speaker 1: and our brain chemistry changes and our consciousness changes. That
[2:28:49] Speaker 1: is the case consciousness. Yeah, but our consciousness can actually
[2:28:54] Speaker 1: change our brain chemistry. Well a lot of they.
[2:28:57] Speaker 2: Can change your brain chemistry, but that's your brain chemistry
[2:29:00] Speaker 2: working on itself. Just like have you read the split
[2:29:04] Speaker 2: brain experiments?
[2:29:05] Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly. I think it's one of a good point.
[2:29:07] Speaker 2: Have you seen where people develop dual personalities because of
[2:29:11] Speaker 2: the split brain experiment?
[2:29:12] Speaker 1: Yeah, and those dual personalities can actually impact the brain states.
[2:29:17] Speaker 1: That's my point is that consciousness, if it is emergent,
[2:29:20] Speaker 1: it makes no sense. Why not why this emergent property
[2:29:23] Speaker 1: could have downward causation. Well I disagree, Well, that's just
[2:29:28] Speaker 1: what this.
[2:29:30] Speaker 2: Are. Human is human If human life is an emergent
[2:29:33] Speaker 2: property of evolutions, all chemical reactions, and we have the
[2:29:37] Speaker 2: ability to go into our planet and change the chemical
[2:29:40] Speaker 2: compounds that we just came from. Then that's just one
[2:29:45] Speaker 2: thing behaving in a way that causes a system of effect.
[2:29:49] Speaker 1: That's it.
[2:29:50] Speaker 2: So like our brain having different brain states because of
[2:29:53] Speaker 2: other brain states is just cause and effect.
[2:29:57] Speaker 1: Okay, I'll just move on. Essentially, I just say a focus,
[2:30:02] Speaker 1: these things are not brain states. This is something you're
[2:30:05] Speaker 1: consciously doing, and the data shows that our conscious conscious
[2:30:09] Speaker 1: effects do change sections of our brain, our brain states.
[2:30:16] Speaker 1: I think that the immaterial self. If something about immaterial
[2:30:19] Speaker 1: solves the hard problem of consciousness. Oh, are you familiar
[2:30:22] Speaker 1: with the hard problem of consciousness?
[2:30:24] Speaker 2: I'm not. But before you posit that it solved hard consciousness,
[2:30:28] Speaker 2: you would have to posit that the thing exists. Like
[2:30:30] Speaker 2: if I said, at least a no car can break
[2:30:34] Speaker 2: five hundred miles an hour, and I said, except for
[2:30:36] Speaker 2: my car. I've got a car that can break five
[2:30:38] Speaker 2: hundred miles an hour, and someone says, no, this is
[2:30:41] Speaker 2: a this is a real problem. No car can break
[2:30:43] Speaker 2: five hundred I'm like, well, it's not true, because my
[2:30:45] Speaker 2: car can. Now you're just you have to prove that
[2:30:47] Speaker 2: your car exists before you can say your car can
[2:30:49] Speaker 2: do that thing can't do.
[2:30:50] Speaker 1: You're asking me for physical evidence of something that is
[2:30:54] Speaker 1: non physical. All I can look at is the data
[2:30:57] Speaker 1: and infer the best explanation.
[2:31:00] Speaker 2: You know, we've all studied on this, like we've We've
[2:31:03] Speaker 2: tried to trigger out of body experiences.
[2:31:07] Speaker 1: Yeah, well that's not I'm not bringing out of body
[2:31:09] Speaker 1: experiences or near death experiences or things like that.
[2:31:11] Speaker 2: Well I am. That's what I'm saying is we've tried
[2:31:14] Speaker 2: to demonstrate scientifically that consciousness can exist outside of the brain,
[2:31:19] Speaker 2: and every study that we have fails. We we trigger
[2:31:22] Speaker 2: out of body experiences using brain stimulation, d MT, cybercillin
[2:31:26] Speaker 2: the different things like that. People claim they're having out
[2:31:29] Speaker 2: of body experiences, but then they can never they can
[2:31:32] Speaker 2: never validate it. It always turns out that it's a hallucination. Right,
[2:31:35] Speaker 2: So listen, science is trying to decide on whether or
[2:31:41] Speaker 2: not consciousness can't exist outside of the brain. All of
[2:31:44] Speaker 2: the evidence we have suggests otherwise. Until we have evidence,
[2:31:48] Speaker 2: I would just disagree and show me the evidence.
[2:31:51] Speaker 1: So the downward causation to me, makes no sense. If
[2:31:55] Speaker 1: you're if your consciousness is emergent from purely physical stuff,
[2:31:59] Speaker 1: why that may absolutely no sense. How can this.
[2:32:03] Speaker 3: That's that's an argument for incruality.
[2:32:05] Speaker 1: You know that one No, this is I don't believe
[2:32:09] Speaker 1: that it is. This is sounds like it makes no
[2:32:10] Speaker 1: sense that emergent property would be able to actually retroactively
[2:32:14] Speaker 1: change the brain states that, Why can't from that? This
[2:32:18] Speaker 1: is illogical?
[2:32:19] Speaker 2: What's the logical about?
[2:32:20] Speaker 1: We just keep going Let me just keep going on
[2:32:22] Speaker 1: because you asked for evidence, So the hard problem of consciousness.
[2:32:26] Speaker 2: This guy, all right, listen, I'm not gonna bog down
[2:32:29] Speaker 2: the entire conversation and question. We're gonna We're gonna give
[2:32:33] Speaker 2: We're going to get back to the actual conversation. Do
[2:32:35] Speaker 2: you have an evidence or an argument that resulted in your.
[2:32:38] Speaker 1: Book of God? This is evidence. So the hard problem
[2:32:41] Speaker 1: with consciousness conscious.
[2:32:44] Speaker 2: Because you can believe, you can believe in consciousness outside
[2:32:47] Speaker 2: the brain and be Buddhists that don't believe in God.
[2:32:48] Speaker 2: So has nothing to do with God. Which is why
[2:32:53] Speaker 2: I'm asking you. Can you get back to the actual conversation,
[2:32:56] Speaker 2: which is whether or not God exists?
[2:32:58] Speaker 1: If you well, I don't know how this is a
[2:33:01] Speaker 1: difficult jump for you. If there is an immaterial mind
[2:33:03] Speaker 1: that exists and you have it. I have it, human
[2:33:06] Speaker 1: beings have it. The jump from an immaterial minds to
[2:33:10] Speaker 1: God is just a puddle jump. It's not that difficult
[2:33:13] Speaker 1: to get to, right, But.
[2:33:14] Speaker 2: You haven't proven it, which is what I'm saying, Like
[2:33:16] Speaker 2: you just you keep asserting that it must be the case.
[2:33:19] Speaker 2: So it's not a good argument. If your argument for
[2:33:22] Speaker 2: God rests on an immaterial mind existing and you can't
[2:33:24] Speaker 2: demonstrate the immaterial minds exist, then you didn't actually demonstrate
[2:33:28] Speaker 2: the existence of God.
[2:33:29] Speaker 3: You need to provide a different argument.
[2:33:31] Speaker 2: Even if you did present an argument that ended in
[2:33:34] Speaker 2: immaterial minds existing, it still doesn't end with an immaterial
[2:33:38] Speaker 2: God existing. You still have to provide an argument for that.
[2:33:40] Speaker 2: So you failed number one. You didn't have premise number two.
[2:33:46] Speaker 1: It would mean that physicalism is false, right If if
[2:33:49] Speaker 1: there are immaterial realities that exist, physicalism isn't true. Atheism
[2:33:54] Speaker 1: isn't true.
[2:33:55] Speaker 2: Right, But you can have immaterialism without a God. That's
[2:33:58] Speaker 2: why I'm saying there are there are cultures like the
[2:34:00] Speaker 2: Buddhists who believe in immaterial reality that don't believe in
[2:34:05] Speaker 2: a God. So just moving to immaterialism doesn't get you
[2:34:09] Speaker 2: to God being real, which is why they get it
[2:34:13] Speaker 2: doesn't get No, it doesn't.
[2:34:16] Speaker 1: So atheists are naturalist? You do you believe in the immaterial?
[2:34:20] Speaker 3: Certainly not the case.
[2:34:22] Speaker 1: Okay, So what atheists believe in and imagine our immaterial
[2:34:26] Speaker 1: reality is existing like a soul. Buddhists there, So I'm
[2:34:31] Speaker 1: talking about atheists that believe.
[2:34:33] Speaker 3: In Buddhists are atheism or theists?
[2:34:36] Speaker 1: Okay? So are you a Buddhist? Okay, Well, I'm talking
[2:34:40] Speaker 1: to atheists like Internet TikTok atheists that I interact with.
[2:34:44] Speaker 2: And I'm telling you I am. I don't believe in spirits.
[2:34:49] Speaker 2: I don't believe in the immaterial world. And you haven't
[2:34:52] Speaker 2: provided an argument that ends in the immaterial world. And
[2:34:56] Speaker 2: even if you could, it doesn't end in God, because
[2:35:00] Speaker 2: we see there are very good arguments for the immaterial
[2:35:03] Speaker 2: world not ending in God. Case in point, the Buddhists
[2:35:06] Speaker 2: are a great example. So you're not really helping your argument.
[2:35:10] Speaker 2: All you're doing is trying to, like just assume that
[2:35:14] Speaker 2: if I would accept an immaterial reality, then therefore I
[2:35:18] Speaker 2: have to be agnostic on God.
[2:35:19] Speaker 1: I don't, but specifically immaterial minds existing immaterial that doesn't
[2:35:27] Speaker 1: end in God. That's fine. It doesn't end in atheism,
[2:35:31] Speaker 1: that's for sure. It does, so I'm just saying this.
[2:35:35] Speaker 1: It does. There's a lot of atheists that believe in souls.
[2:35:37] Speaker 1: The buddy.
[2:35:39] Speaker 3: I don't know how many times I have to say this.
[2:35:41] Speaker 2: There are atheists people who don't believe in a creator
[2:35:44] Speaker 2: God that also believe in an immaterial spiritual existence. They
[2:35:50] Speaker 2: just don't believe in a creator God. Getting from immaterialism
[2:35:55] Speaker 2: to a creator entity is a leap that you can't make.
[2:36:00] Speaker 1: Okay, So I'll just move on. Sounds like we're just
[2:36:03] Speaker 1: not going to agree to disagree. You can move on
[2:36:05] Speaker 1: to a different guests, or we could keep you appen.
[2:36:07] Speaker 1: I don't want to take up your time.
[2:36:08] Speaker 2: Well, which God do you believe in?
[2:36:11] Speaker 1: Well, I'm a Christian, so I believe you.
[2:36:13] Speaker 3: So what's the evidence that the Christian God exists?
[2:36:17] Speaker 1: Well, I think the the idea of immaterial minds existing
[2:36:21] Speaker 1: is a pretty strong evidence.
[2:36:23] Speaker 3: Not evidence, for the Christian God.
[2:36:24] Speaker 2: It could be a law, it could be Vishna, it
[2:36:27] Speaker 2: could be Sivu Siva. I said that wrong. I mean
[2:36:33] Speaker 2: it could get you to a form of Theism. It
[2:36:35] Speaker 2: could get you to a form of Buddhism. It could
[2:36:37] Speaker 2: get you the paganism, It could get you a lot
[2:36:39] Speaker 2: of things, right. I'm asking for the argument that ends
[2:36:41] Speaker 2: in the Christian God being real, and.
[2:36:43] Speaker 1: I think that if you are stripped away all reality,
[2:36:47] Speaker 1: all physical reality, you have left the laws of logic.
[2:36:51] Speaker 1: Do we agree on that?
[2:36:53] Speaker 2: No? I think the laws of logic are invented, just
[2:36:56] Speaker 2: like English.
[2:36:58] Speaker 1: So the laws of logic began to exist.
[2:37:01] Speaker 2: No, they don't exist at all. We invented it. It's
[2:37:04] Speaker 2: a language to describe how.
[2:37:05] Speaker 1: The world works, because you don't think it's actually is
[2:37:09] Speaker 1: the case that A equals A are things you think
[2:37:12] Speaker 1: in reality? Things could contradict? No, well that that if
[2:37:17] Speaker 1: that's in reality.
[2:37:19] Speaker 2: No, reality is described by using the laws of logic,
[2:37:23] Speaker 2: just like one is one.
[2:37:25] Speaker 3: Because we invented the meaning of the word one.
[2:37:27] Speaker 2: You got it. We invented the concepts that are referred
[2:37:30] Speaker 2: to as the laws of logic.
[2:37:32] Speaker 1: And again syntax.
[2:37:34] Speaker 2: Again, this doesn't have anything to do with the biblical God.
[2:37:38] Speaker 1: So the syntax we don't make up. The words we
[2:37:41] Speaker 1: use we obviously make up, but the meaning of the
[2:37:44] Speaker 1: words we do not make up. So the law of
[2:37:46] Speaker 1: non contradiction says, you know, I can't be in a
[2:37:50] Speaker 1: square circle room, right.
[2:37:52] Speaker 2: Because that's how the world behaves.
[2:37:54] Speaker 1: I know, is there any way in which the world
[2:37:57] Speaker 1: could behave that way?
[2:37:59] Speaker 2: It does behave that way, That's what I'm saying. And
[2:38:01] Speaker 2: now there are some quantum theories that suggest that some
[2:38:05] Speaker 2: of the laws of logic aren't as water tight. Right. So,
[2:38:09] Speaker 2: for example, recently in a study they did a quantum
[2:38:13] Speaker 2: time reversal, and there's a couple other quantum experiments that
[2:38:16] Speaker 2: would poop poo.
[2:38:17] Speaker 3: On the laws of logic.
[2:38:18] Speaker 2: But I'm willing to accept the laws of logic at
[2:38:21] Speaker 2: this point as being universal. But again, these are descriptions
[2:38:25] Speaker 2: of the way the universe behaves. If we discover that
[2:38:28] Speaker 2: one of the laws of logics doesn't actually always work,
[2:38:31] Speaker 2: then we would have to get rid of it and say, well,
[2:38:33] Speaker 2: it usually almost always works.
[2:38:35] Speaker 1: Well, I'm just asking, is there a hypothetical you can
[2:38:38] Speaker 1: think of where the laws like things would actually contradict
[2:38:43] Speaker 1: in reality.
[2:38:45] Speaker 2: No, because we've described reality, because that's the way it behaves.
[2:38:50] Speaker 2: If we say this thumb drive is a thumb drive
[2:38:53] Speaker 2: and it's not a thumb drive, we've described that. We
[2:38:58] Speaker 2: just said this thing is what it is is. But
[2:39:01] Speaker 2: there's no law requiring it to be the thing that
[2:39:03] Speaker 2: it is. We're just saying the thing is what it is,
[2:39:05] Speaker 2: and it can't be anything other than the thing it's it.
[2:39:08] Speaker 1: Yep, that's all the laws of logic are. So if
[2:39:11] Speaker 1: they yeah, there's univers I know exactly. So if the
[2:39:14] Speaker 1: universe didn't exist, let's just pretend all physical reality didn't exist.
[2:39:19] Speaker 1: Would a still equally with the law of non contradiction
[2:39:22] Speaker 1: still be true no matter what physical reality you can
[2:39:25] Speaker 1: dream up. It seems like the law of nine question
[2:39:28] Speaker 1: with all questions.
[2:39:30] Speaker 3: The questions malformed.
[2:39:31] Speaker 2: You're asking if nothing existed, would something exist? Obviously no.
[2:39:35] Speaker 2: If nothing existed, then there's no laws of logic that
[2:39:38] Speaker 2: was created to describe the thing that existed.
[2:39:41] Speaker 1: If nothing existed, with nothing equal nothing.
[2:39:44] Speaker 3: That's the point.
[2:39:45] Speaker 2: So there's noch a thing as nothing, which goes to
[2:39:47] Speaker 2: my point that I bring up a lot, which is
[2:39:49] Speaker 2: the idea that there is such a thing as nothing
[2:39:51] Speaker 2: is absurd.
[2:39:53] Speaker 1: I mean, I agree with you, that's why I think
[2:39:55] Speaker 1: the laws of one still exist.
[2:39:57] Speaker 2: So we never had nothing. But the laws of logic
[2:39:59] Speaker 2: are descriptions. They don't exist. They're not a stuff. You
[2:40:02] Speaker 2: can't point to them. They're just they're just like when
[2:40:06] Speaker 2: I say, when I say thumb drive, thumb drive is
[2:40:11] Speaker 2: an abstract cont concept that my brain is using to
[2:40:14] Speaker 2: describe something that's it. I can't I can't find uh,
[2:40:20] Speaker 2: I can't find like a platonic form of my thumb
[2:40:23] Speaker 2: drive in space anywhere it doesn't exist.
[2:40:26] Speaker 1: But yeah, so you're using words to describe something that exists, right.
[2:40:30] Speaker 3: Yeah, I'm using words to describe things.
[2:40:33] Speaker 1: Using words that describe propositions, like true statements. They are
[2:40:37] Speaker 1: always going to be the case. We call these metaphysical truths.
[2:40:40] Speaker 1: Those are always good.
[2:40:42] Speaker 2: But those are it didn't just didn't valuations. They don't exist,
[2:40:47] Speaker 2: they're valuations.
[2:40:50] Speaker 1: Okay, well it sounds like you are not. You believe
[2:40:52] Speaker 1: that the laws of logic are just contingent, mind dependent things.
[2:40:55] Speaker 1: To me, that's insane most philosophers.
[2:40:58] Speaker 3: Another argument from anchored I know.
[2:41:01] Speaker 1: Most atheist philosophers would say, you're being ridiculous. Obviously I
[2:41:05] Speaker 1: don't they're necessarily true. Well, clearly you don't. You haven't.
[2:41:10] Speaker 1: I don't be rude. I appreciate your time, man, So
[2:41:13] Speaker 1: I would just.
[2:41:14] Speaker 2: Be clear, you don't have a single argument for the
[2:41:16] Speaker 2: biblical God.
[2:41:19] Speaker 1: Well, if we can't even agree on like basic laws
[2:41:23] Speaker 1: of logic. What those are Getting to the God of
[2:41:27] Speaker 1: even Theism in general is not a leap You're not
[2:41:30] Speaker 1: gonna be able to make.
[2:41:31] Speaker 2: Listen, I'll grant you right now that there's a God
[2:41:34] Speaker 2: and his name is Doug. Convince me that it's Jesus
[2:41:37] Speaker 2: and not Doug.
[2:41:40] Speaker 1: So you're saying that God exists, It grounds logic, it
[2:41:44] Speaker 1: grounds them around.
[2:41:45] Speaker 2: No, I didn't say that. Well, Doug, those are those
[2:41:48] Speaker 2: are things that you that you invented. You invented those
[2:41:52] Speaker 2: characteristics of God. Right, I'm not asking you to ask
[2:41:56] Speaker 2: me questions about Doug. I'm asking you to give me
[2:41:59] Speaker 2: an argument that your God is real, that Jesus and
[2:42:03] Speaker 2: the Trinity is real and not my God.
[2:42:05] Speaker 1: Doug se so you don't so you don't really care
[2:42:09] Speaker 1: about the God the God question. You just say, do
[2:42:12] Speaker 1: you care about Christianity being true or false?
[2:42:14] Speaker 2: Well, I already told you I don't believe in your God.
[2:42:16] Speaker 2: You couldn't provide a rational argument for it. I'm willing
[2:42:20] Speaker 2: for the sake of conversation to grant you that there
[2:42:22] Speaker 2: could be a God, and you still even if I
[2:42:24] Speaker 2: grant you all that, you'll still never get to the
[2:42:26] Speaker 2: Christian God. So what's the argument for the Christian God
[2:42:30] Speaker 2: being real versus any other god concept?
[2:42:33] Speaker 1: I mean, now we're talking about if God exists. Does
[2:42:36] Speaker 1: the ancient historical evidence for Christianity? Is it true? I
[2:42:40] Speaker 1: would say.
[2:42:40] Speaker 3: Yes, sure, and give me the argument or the evidence
[2:42:43] Speaker 3: for that.
[2:42:46] Speaker 1: Well, before we start, are you familiar with like, how
[2:42:48] Speaker 1: do we know things in ancient history?
[2:42:51] Speaker 2: We don't know anything beyond a shadow of a doubt
[2:42:54] Speaker 2: from ancient history.
[2:42:54] Speaker 1: Also we could do is use.
[2:42:56] Speaker 2: The evidence that's in front of us and say what's
[2:42:58] Speaker 2: the most likely case?
[2:43:00] Speaker 1: So we use probabilities rightly, say internal evidence, external evidence.
[2:43:06] Speaker 1: We use the laws of logic, which I know you
[2:43:08] Speaker 1: don't really care for, but we use those to look
[2:43:11] Speaker 1: at ancient events archaeology and say what's the cumulive case
[2:43:15] Speaker 1: if we.
[2:43:16] Speaker 3: Know how ancient texts work.
[2:43:18] Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm asking for the evidence or the argument that
[2:43:20] Speaker 2: the Christian God is real and not Zeus.
[2:43:24] Speaker 1: So we have more evidence of this at one event
[2:43:28] Speaker 1: of Jesus Christ being executed by the Roman crucifixion than
[2:43:31] Speaker 1: we do anything in ancient history.
[2:43:33] Speaker 2: I agree, people get executed by the Romans all the time.
[2:43:36] Speaker 1: Sure, what I said was the event of Jesus Christ
[2:43:39] Speaker 1: as Nazareth being killed by the Romans.
[2:43:42] Speaker 2: I agree there probably was a guy named Jesus who
[2:43:45] Speaker 2: was a Jewish teacher that got killed by the Romans.
[2:43:48] Speaker 1: So what and do you agree that he was probably
[2:43:50] Speaker 1: buried in a public tomb?
[2:43:52] Speaker 2: Oh, I have no idea. I have no opinion on
[2:43:54] Speaker 2: how he was buried. In fact, what we know from
[2:43:56] Speaker 2: the ancient world is most of the people that were
[2:43:58] Speaker 2: crucified typically buried in tombs, specifically not tombs owned by
[2:44:03] Speaker 2: Richmond that were opposed to what the Sanhedron was doing.
[2:44:07] Speaker 1: So do you so under Jewish law, do you think
[2:44:10] Speaker 1: that it was important for them to be buried.
[2:44:13] Speaker 2: Oh? Yeah, so under Jewish law it was important for
[2:44:17] Speaker 2: them to be buried. But he wasn't executed by the Jews.
[2:44:20] Speaker 2: He was executed by the Romans. Being that being said,
[2:44:23] Speaker 2: if you believe he was executed by the.
[2:44:25] Speaker 1: Jews and the Jews wanted to do aishly in peacetime,
[2:44:28] Speaker 1: we have archaeological evidence of Jews being buried after Crucifixion.
[2:44:32] Speaker 1: Johannan had as a nail through his being buried after Crucifixion.
[2:44:37] Speaker 1: Johannan had as a nail through his heel, So it
[2:44:41] Speaker 1: wasn't an uncommon practice. We see four different attestations that
[2:44:45] Speaker 1: Josepha or Joseph Avermathea is the one that buried him
[2:44:50] Speaker 1: if we apply the exact Joseph Varmathea, Joseph Verimythia, Yes,
[2:44:55] Speaker 1: the member of the Sanhedron.
[2:44:57] Speaker 2: I know of no evidence that Joseph a Vermanthea was
[2:44:59] Speaker 2: a real person.
[2:45:02] Speaker 1: Well we have to so again we have to look
[2:45:04] Speaker 1: at ancient history.
[2:45:05] Speaker 2: Well, what's the ancient history that says Joseph Avermathia existed.
[2:45:09] Speaker 1: Well, he's attested four different independent times by who Matthew, Mark, Luke,
[2:45:14] Speaker 1: and John.
[2:45:15] Speaker 2: Those are independent accounts. Two of them are copying from Mark.
[2:45:20] Speaker 1: In the Joseph Avermythia story. Are you sure no?
[2:45:23] Speaker 2: I mean the gospel is by and large Matthew and
[2:45:25] Speaker 2: Luke are mostly copying from Mark. They got some of
[2:45:27] Speaker 2: their own material, and then they've got some common material,
[2:45:30] Speaker 2: probably pulled from the document referred to as Q. And
[2:45:35] Speaker 2: Joseph of Arimathea isn't attested to by four completely independent witnesses.
[2:45:41] Speaker 2: He's not here.
[2:45:45] Speaker 1: Mark, Matthew isn't copying Mark in this section. It's an
[2:45:47] Speaker 1: independent tradition. He's got If we have anything like this
[2:45:50] Speaker 1: and any other work in any ancient history, we would
[2:45:54] Speaker 1: say this most likely happened. I'm saying, apply the same
[2:45:57] Speaker 1: rigor and principles we would and other any other ancient history,
[2:46:01] Speaker 1: and apply it to the New Testament documents as well.
[2:46:05] Speaker 3: So, first of all, Mark's not eyewitnessed anything. He's the
[2:46:08] Speaker 3: first Gospel author.
[2:46:09] Speaker 2: He's in witness a Damne.
[2:46:10] Speaker 1: It's the attribute. What's the attestation? Is he interviewing an eyewitness?
[2:46:14] Speaker 2: We have no idea because the Gospel doesn't tell us
[2:46:16] Speaker 2: who the author is. And so this is the other
[2:46:18] Speaker 2: problem is we don't know who wrote Mark. We don't
[2:46:21] Speaker 2: know who wrote Luke, we don't know who wrote Matthew,
[2:46:23] Speaker 2: and we don't know who wrote John. John attributes at
[2:46:26] Speaker 2: least two different authors. They're identified in chapter twenty one.
[2:46:30] Speaker 2: The Gospel of Mark doesn't say who the author is.
[2:46:32] Speaker 2: It's attributed to later. If you believe it's John Mark,
[2:46:36] Speaker 2: then that's the cousin of Barnabas, as we find in
[2:46:38] Speaker 2: Clausen's chapter four. So he's not a disciple, he's not
[2:46:42] Speaker 2: an eyewitnessed anything. If anything, he's just copying down somebody
[2:46:45] Speaker 2: else's account, maybe even a secondhand account. Luke and Matthew
[2:46:49] Speaker 2: both copy from Mark, which is astounding to me because
[2:46:53] Speaker 2: Luke wasn't an eyewitness either. Matthew theoretically, if you think
[2:46:57] Speaker 2: he wrote, Matthew, which I don't, was an eyewitness, but
[2:46:59] Speaker 2: he felt the need to copy his own conversion testimony
[2:47:03] Speaker 2: from Mark rather than telling it himself and the first person,
[2:47:06] Speaker 2: which is wild.
[2:47:08] Speaker 1: So do you think so you're saying we have no
[2:47:11] Speaker 1: clue who wrote this, because it's not saying like I,
[2:47:14] Speaker 1: John Mark am writing this biography.
[2:47:16] Speaker 2: What I'm saying is that the internal evidence from the
[2:47:20] Speaker 2: four Gospels don't attribute authorship. It's something we get later
[2:47:24] Speaker 2: from church fathers. And the church fathers say varying things
[2:47:28] Speaker 2: about the independent authors, and so the earliest church fathers
[2:47:33] Speaker 2: like they don't So like Pappius describes an early gospel
[2:47:36] Speaker 2: that doesn't look like any of the gospels that we have.
[2:47:39] Speaker 2: I forget there's another church father that describes the gospels.
[2:47:44] Speaker 1: Either.
[2:47:44] Speaker 2: I think it's Matthew as a Saying's gospel. Matthew is
[2:47:47] Speaker 2: not a saying his gospel. The Gospel of Thomas is.
[2:47:50] Speaker 3: But again I don't think either.
[2:47:53] Speaker 2: I don't think any of the four Gospels are evidence
[2:47:56] Speaker 2: that Jesus rose from the dead, for the same reason
[2:47:59] Speaker 2: that the hundreds of people that witnessed other claim to
[2:48:02] Speaker 2: witness other resurrections aren't evidence of their resurrections. Like you
[2:48:06] Speaker 2: don't believe that Dalmoxist resurrected. You don't believe that Alcestis resurrected,
[2:48:11] Speaker 2: You don't believe that Aristius resurrected. Yet all of these
[2:48:14] Speaker 2: people have a wide attestation in the Greco Roman world
[2:48:18] Speaker 2: of being resurrected.
[2:48:19] Speaker 1: So real quick. So that's what I'm hit on you.
[2:48:21] Speaker 1: So you're saying that we do not know who wrote
[2:48:23] Speaker 1: these because they do not say who wrote them in
[2:48:26] Speaker 1: their text. Is that what you're saying?
[2:48:28] Speaker 2: What I'm saying, all we can do is use second
[2:48:31] Speaker 2: or third hand testimony and assume we knew who wrote
[2:48:36] Speaker 2: them even though they don't identify themselves. The authors of
[2:48:39] Speaker 2: the text don't identify themselves, which means we have.
[2:48:43] Speaker 1: To make the reception attributions.
[2:48:46] Speaker 2: That's right.
[2:48:47] Speaker 1: So do you think, so, how do we know taskits
[2:48:50] Speaker 1: wrote his history even though he doesn't say it.
[2:48:53] Speaker 3: Oh, I have no idea.
[2:48:54] Speaker 2: I don't I don't study the Roman histories and like
[2:48:57] Speaker 2: their origin So as to the writing of Fastidus, I
[2:49:02] Speaker 2: don't know if he attributed to himself.
[2:49:07] Speaker 1: So he writes his w he's Italian or he's a
[2:49:10] Speaker 1: Roman historian. He lives in Italy. His first attribution is
[2:49:14] Speaker 1: four hundred and fifty years later in a manuscript, in
[2:49:18] Speaker 1: a manuscript that we first have pieces of I think
[2:49:20] Speaker 1: a thousand years after he lived. If we use the
[2:49:24] Speaker 1: exact same criteria, most biographies histories didn't say hey, I
[2:49:28] Speaker 1: Throucididies and writing this history. It was just it was
[2:49:31] Speaker 1: common practice to just write it, and we'd have in
[2:49:35] Speaker 1: manuscript data tradition who wrote it. We have more external
[2:49:40] Speaker 1: attributions for the Gospel authorship earlier than any other work
[2:49:44] Speaker 1: in ancient history. So if we have no competing theories
[2:49:47] Speaker 1: for three hundred years, why not just apply the exact
[2:49:51] Speaker 1: same principles and say, hey, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John
[2:49:53] Speaker 1: are most likely the people who wrote it. It's not
[2:49:56] Speaker 1: a supernatural claim. It doesn't mean Christianity is true. It
[2:49:59] Speaker 1: just means, hey, these people probably actually wrote it.
[2:50:02] Speaker 2: Well, again, it doesn't matter who wrote it because they
[2:50:05] Speaker 2: weren't eyewitnesses. Number two, the testimony of who wrote them.
[2:50:11] Speaker 2: No it wouldn't be even if Mark wrote, I don't
[2:50:15] Speaker 2: know why you keep talking over me.
[2:50:17] Speaker 1: Just because you're saying Even if even.
[2:50:19] Speaker 2: If Mark wrote Mark, which I have no reason to
[2:50:21] Speaker 2: believe he did, He's not an eyewitness, he wasn't a disciple,
[2:50:25] Speaker 2: he wasn't there.
[2:50:26] Speaker 3: He's the cousin of Barnabas.
[2:50:28] Speaker 1: Luke mar attributing.
[2:50:30] Speaker 2: Luke admits to not being a witness. Luke admits to
[2:50:33] Speaker 2: be receiving the documentation from others. John clearly has multiple authors.
[2:50:40] Speaker 2: John is clearly written by multiple authors who identify themselves
[2:50:44] Speaker 2: in the last chapter. Now, it's possible that John, or
[2:50:47] Speaker 2: who's ever writing the Gospel of John is collecting people's
[2:50:51] Speaker 2: testimonies and assembling them into the Gospel of John. That's
[2:50:55] Speaker 2: certainly possible. But one thing we know is that John
[2:50:58] Speaker 2: didn't write it, and and John could be an eye
[2:51:01] Speaker 2: witness if he wrote it.
[2:51:02] Speaker 3: That being said, I have no reason to believe that
[2:51:04] Speaker 3: I wrote it.
[2:51:05] Speaker 2: And it's weird to me that he waited until almost
[2:51:07] Speaker 2: the turn of the first century to do so. And
[2:51:10] Speaker 2: it's also weird that all of these gospels are full
[2:51:13] Speaker 2: of contradictory details, failed prophecies, filled predictions, so even if
[2:51:19] Speaker 2: I could grant you, let's say, for example, there was
[2:51:21] Speaker 2: an air tight case where the Gospel authors identify themselves
[2:51:25] Speaker 2: and say no, no, no, I was there, it doesn't
[2:51:27] Speaker 2: mean anything to me.
[2:51:28] Speaker 3: It's meaningless to me.
[2:51:29] Speaker 2: I have equal accounts from the ancient world talking about
[2:51:32] Speaker 2: other people who did miracles and resurrected, and I don't
[2:51:36] Speaker 2: believe that those things are true either. And the accounts
[2:51:39] Speaker 2: in the Bible purport to be all true, but they
[2:51:43] Speaker 2: can't be all true when they clearly are saying things
[2:51:45] Speaker 2: that are false. So I'm not going to believe like
[2:51:48] Speaker 2: these documents that are saying things that are clearly not
[2:51:51] Speaker 2: true and say, oh, but when they talk about the
[2:51:53] Speaker 2: resurrection of this dead guy, that's the one true thing
[2:51:56] Speaker 2: they said.
[2:51:58] Speaker 1: So just I just want and not keep moving off
[2:52:01] Speaker 1: this topic. So I'm sure you don't. Yeah, I know
[2:52:03] Speaker 1: it was because because I think your arguments are kind
[2:52:06] Speaker 1: of weak. So of Mark. If we look at the
[2:52:08] Speaker 1: external attributions, it's widely attested from different geographical regions, from
[2:52:14] Speaker 1: different traditions that Mark is getting this this from Peter.
[2:52:18] Speaker 1: Peter was a direct eyewitness of Jesus.
[2:52:20] Speaker 2: Right, No, Peter certainly would have been a drugt eyewitness.
[2:52:24] Speaker 3: But what's what's the evidence that, No, what's.
[2:52:26] Speaker 2: The evidence that Mark wrote Peter's account? Because all you've
[2:52:29] Speaker 2: got is you've got the church fathers in the second
[2:52:32] Speaker 2: century that mentioned the Gospel of Mark being a witness of.
[2:52:38] Speaker 1: What character in What character in Mark do you think
[2:52:40] Speaker 1: is the most focused on?
[2:52:44] Speaker 2: I don't know if there is a character in Mark
[2:52:47] Speaker 2: that gets the most focused, but I do know of
[2:52:49] Speaker 2: the apostles in all four Gospels other than the Gospel
[2:52:52] Speaker 2: of John, Peter gets the most playtime.
[2:52:55] Speaker 1: So Peter is is highlighted a lot.
[2:52:57] Speaker 2: More in Mark and Matthew and Luke.
[2:53:01] Speaker 1: Oh no, No, Comparatively, Mark is definitely highlights Peter's, Peter's perspective,
[2:53:06] Speaker 1: and Matthew and Luke comparatively. So like if you look
[2:53:11] Speaker 1: at it, comparing this for Mark is going to have
[2:53:15] Speaker 1: more emphasis on Peter and Matthew and Luke too. Okay,
[2:53:20] Speaker 1: I don't maybe don't know what comparatively is. So Mark
[2:53:23] Speaker 1: is getting is highlighting Peter more than the other gospels.
[2:53:27] Speaker 2: I disagree.
[2:53:28] Speaker 1: Okay, Well we can move on Mark.
[2:53:31] Speaker 2: How many times has Peter mentioned in Mark?
[2:53:34] Speaker 1: I'll have to go google. It's been a while since
[2:53:36] Speaker 1: I looked at this.
[2:53:36] Speaker 2: He's mentioned mentioned more in Matthew.
[2:53:40] Speaker 1: How much percentage wise the text Mark's the shorter gospel.
[2:53:44] Speaker 1: How much percentage wise of the text does Mark talk
[2:53:47] Speaker 1: about Peter.
[2:53:48] Speaker 2: Oh, I've never drilled into the gospels and said, okay,
[2:53:51] Speaker 2: based on the number of words in the Gospels, here
[2:53:54] Speaker 2: are the percentages of the Gospels coming coming from particular figures.
[2:54:02] Speaker 1: So this does not evidence.
[2:54:03] Speaker 2: This is really really weak, not even triangulation what you're suggesting.
[2:54:10] Speaker 2: But you're suggested, well, if he's getting his information from Peter,
[2:54:14] Speaker 2: we would expect not to contradict the other gospel authors,
[2:54:17] Speaker 2: and unfortunately the gospel authors contradict each other.
[2:54:21] Speaker 1: So so so I'm just saying I think I think
[2:54:25] Speaker 1: basic logic would say, if Mark is getting this from Peter,
[2:54:28] Speaker 1: he's going to highlight Peter's perspective more.
[2:54:30] Speaker 2: I'm saying he would highlight Peter's perspective a million times more.
[2:54:35] Speaker 2: But that's not what's happening in the Gospels. Peter's perspective
[2:54:38] Speaker 2: Mark is roughly similar to the perspective of the other
[2:54:43] Speaker 2: gospel authors. So the mentions of Peter are roughly the same.
[2:54:47] Speaker 2: Between Matthew, Mark, and Luke in the Gospel of John.
[2:54:52] Speaker 2: It's even higher. Peter is mentioned more in the Gospel
[2:54:55] Speaker 2: of John than all three that all four of the
[2:54:58] Speaker 2: other gospels, and percentage wise.
[2:55:00] Speaker 1: Yes, really a percentage wise. So now if Mark is
[2:55:04] Speaker 1: getting this information from an eyewitness, Matthew would be an eyewitness.
[2:55:08] Speaker 1: Luke claims he wasn't there, but he he obviously interviews eyewitnesses.
[2:55:14] Speaker 3: Are you not going to address John?
[2:55:16] Speaker 1: John would be an eyewitness?
[2:55:18] Speaker 2: Why why does John What does John mention Peter more
[2:55:21] Speaker 2: than all of the other.
[2:55:22] Speaker 1: Gospels percentage wise? Based on his gospel? His stories about
[2:55:27] Speaker 1: Peter are more? There are more? Is that you're saying, Yeah, okay,
[2:55:32] Speaker 1: I'll have to I'm gonna have to fact check that.
[2:55:34] Speaker 1: But so if John is an eyewitness, they have two eyewitnesses.
[2:55:38] Speaker 1: You have two people that are interviewing eyewitnesses, which.
[2:55:42] Speaker 2: Is weird than that they conflict, isn't it weird?
[2:55:44] Speaker 1: So like so you would expect witness testimonies to have
[2:55:48] Speaker 1: different accounts.
[2:55:49] Speaker 2: I would, I would expect them not to contradict each other.
[2:55:52] Speaker 2: So this is a problem that you have, right, is
[2:55:55] Speaker 2: the stories don't just tell different perspective, they tell contradictory
[2:56:00] Speaker 2: respective perspectives right. So, for example, in the Gospel of John,
[2:56:04] Speaker 2: after his baptism, he does something completely different than he
[2:56:07] Speaker 2: does in the other gospels. In the Gospel of John,
[2:56:10] Speaker 2: right after his baptism he clears the temple.
[2:56:13] Speaker 3: In the other gospels, that's at the end of his business.
[2:56:16] Speaker 2: Try We've got a lot of inconsistencies between John and
[2:56:20] Speaker 2: the other gospels, and so they don't even agree on
[2:56:23] Speaker 2: what they don't even agree on like what time of
[2:56:26] Speaker 2: day he died, So like, these are these are things
[2:56:30] Speaker 2: that if if the gospel authors were eyewitness testimony, I
[2:56:34] Speaker 2: would expect that these kind of mundane details would match up.
[2:56:37] Speaker 1: We would expect these mundane details probably to not line
[2:56:41] Speaker 1: up because I look at it. If you look at
[2:56:43] Speaker 1: eyewitness testimony, you're going to get way range of minors,
[2:56:49] Speaker 1: small details wrong. You're getting the core facts right. Even
[2:56:52] Speaker 1: if you look at like.
[2:56:53] Speaker 2: Did God inspire them to write contradictory stories?
[2:56:56] Speaker 1: It is sure appears that they are written in human perspective.
[2:57:00] Speaker 1: They could be inspired. It depends on what your view
[2:57:02] Speaker 1: inspired is.
[2:57:02] Speaker 2: Did God inspire them to write down contradictory details?
[2:57:07] Speaker 1: I'm just talking about looking at this from purely ancient
[2:57:10] Speaker 1: historical standards.
[2:57:11] Speaker 2: I'm not going to argue, I'm aware, but if they're
[2:57:14] Speaker 2: saying things that are contradictory, then one of them has
[2:57:17] Speaker 2: to be wrong.
[2:57:18] Speaker 1: So let's just look at an example, So Seconius and Fascinus.
[2:57:22] Speaker 1: I know it's funny, but if we look at like
[2:57:24] Speaker 1: ancient history, so like they look at who killed Julius
[2:57:28] Speaker 1: Caesar or who schmirdered sorry for and they have contradictory
[2:57:33] Speaker 1: statements about minor details, I'm sure they don't according to
[2:57:37] Speaker 1: your logic, we just don't know what happened to Caesar.
[2:57:40] Speaker 1: We should just say we completely agnostic. This didn't happen.
[2:57:43] Speaker 1: This is clearly made up because they contradict on minor details.
[2:57:47] Speaker 2: One of them is purporting to be from God. The
[2:57:49] Speaker 2: writings of the Bible are purporting to be inspired by God,
[2:57:52] Speaker 2: which means I would expect them to actually be true
[2:57:55] Speaker 2: and not things that are untrue. Right, So if they're
[2:57:58] Speaker 2: actually not inspired by God, that I'm not going to
[2:58:01] Speaker 2: treat them like they're inspired by God. I'm going to
[2:58:03] Speaker 2: treat them like every I'm going to treat them like
[2:58:05] Speaker 2: every age. I'm going to treat them like I'm going
[2:58:08] Speaker 2: to treat them like every other book from their time
[2:58:11] Speaker 2: period that's telling mythology when it talks about resurrecting people,
[2:58:15] Speaker 2: when it talks about miracle working. I'm going to treat
[2:58:17] Speaker 2: these stories the same way I treat the other stories,
[2:58:22] Speaker 2: saying the same stuff, because if it's not from God,
[2:58:26] Speaker 2: then it's just another mythological story.
[2:58:29] Speaker 1: Awesome, that is so good to hear. So you're going
[2:58:31] Speaker 1: to treat these New Testament documents one thousand percent the
[2:58:35] Speaker 1: exact same like you would.
[2:58:37] Speaker 2: Yes, And what I'm saying is that you're not You're
[2:58:39] Speaker 2: the one being inconsistent because you don't believe that Aristeus
[2:58:43] Speaker 2: rose from the dead. You don't believe that Vespasian healed
[2:58:46] Speaker 2: a blind man by spitting on his hands and putting
[2:58:48] Speaker 2: it in his eyes. You don't believe these other ancient accounts.
[2:58:51] Speaker 2: You only believe this ancient account.
[2:58:55] Speaker 1: Yes, because I think the evidence points towards that we
[2:58:57] Speaker 1: have multiple independent early out of station and that these
[2:59:00] Speaker 1: events happened. You have multiply what we do is well,
[2:59:04] Speaker 1: then you just do not know about ancient history and
[2:59:07] Speaker 1: how it's done. Because almost every atheist scholar, so most
[2:59:12] Speaker 1: atheist scholars who are not Christians at all, will say
[2:59:18] Speaker 1: these disciples, these people had various visions or vary things
[2:59:24] Speaker 1: that happened to them consciously in different areas, geographically different
[2:59:29] Speaker 1: time periods, that they think they really saw Jesus alive
[2:59:33] Speaker 1: after he had died.
[2:59:34] Speaker 2: I don't know atheists who say that the one you're
[2:59:36] Speaker 2: probably referring to, the one you're probably referring to is
[2:59:40] Speaker 2: part of this minimal witnesses theory, which is right now
[2:59:44] Speaker 2: kind of popular. But the idea that atheist historians believe
[2:59:49] Speaker 2: that the disciples, meaning the twelve Disciples had visions, I
[2:59:54] Speaker 2: don't think is something that's substantiated in history, especially not
[2:59:57] Speaker 2: atheists history.
[2:59:59] Speaker 1: You're freedom, I disagree with scholars who actually study New Testament.
[3:00:03] Speaker 2: I'm not disagreeing with the New Testament scholars.
[3:00:05] Speaker 1: You are well so Gert Ludeman, PAULA. Frederickson, John Dominie
[3:00:11] Speaker 1: Crossing would disagree with you. There aren't an atheists that
[3:00:15] Speaker 1: would say, hey, this Jesus guy existed, he was killed
[3:00:19] Speaker 1: by the Romans.
[3:00:19] Speaker 2: I never said he didn't exist and wasn't killed by
[3:00:21] Speaker 2: the Romans.
[3:00:22] Speaker 1: And then that various groups of people believed that they
[3:00:24] Speaker 1: saw him alive after there you go, Yeah.
[3:00:27] Speaker 2: There were groups of people that claimed that he was
[3:00:30] Speaker 2: alive after his death. The claim that the Disciples specifically
[3:00:35] Speaker 2: were claiming that they witness his resurrection isn't something that
[3:00:38] Speaker 2: they believe in. And even if they even if they
[3:00:41] Speaker 2: did believe it, even if they did believe it, even
[3:00:44] Speaker 2: if they did believe it, it's just well, that's not
[3:00:47] Speaker 2: factually incorrect. So the fact of the matter is, we
[3:00:50] Speaker 2: don't find in atheist's history that they believe all of
[3:00:53] Speaker 2: the Disciples were convinced. These stories come from church history, which.
[3:00:59] Speaker 1: Is just as which is just as.
[3:01:01] Speaker 3: Dubie, which is just as dubious as the book.
[3:01:05] Speaker 2: Why they disagree, they don't, That's what I'm saying.
[3:01:08] Speaker 1: So you've you've done the research and read these books
[3:01:11] Speaker 1: and know that Gert Ludeman, Paula. Frederickson, John Downey Cross, what.
[3:01:15] Speaker 2: I'm saying is what I'm saying is, you know, mischaracterizing
[3:01:18] Speaker 2: the the arguments of these individuals. You're suggesting that they're
[3:01:21] Speaker 2: making claims that the Disciples as a whole, that they
[3:01:25] Speaker 2: have all claimed to witness some sort of version of resurrection,
[3:01:30] Speaker 2: and then you know, based some sort of history on
[3:01:33] Speaker 2: their claims of the resurrection. What I'm saying is I've
[3:01:36] Speaker 2: read quite a few books on the resurrection, and this
[3:01:41] Speaker 2: is not something that the atheist historians agree on. In fact,
[3:01:45] Speaker 2: they disagree greatly on whether or not there was one
[3:01:49] Speaker 2: disciple who had a vision and relate it to other disciples,
[3:01:53] Speaker 2: or whether or not they had a mass hallucination, or
[3:01:55] Speaker 2: whether or not, for example, the imposture theory has some merit,
[3:01:59] Speaker 2: and that's person the theory that I think happened. I
[3:02:01] Speaker 2: think one person. I think one person. I think one person.
[3:02:06] Speaker 1: It's not so.
[3:02:07] Speaker 2: I think it's not so. I think one person who
[3:02:10] Speaker 2: looked like Jesus convinced one of his disciples that he
[3:02:14] Speaker 2: resurrection from the dead, which accounts for why they don't
[3:02:17] Speaker 2: recognize him after his death even in the Gospels. After
[3:02:21] Speaker 2: his resurrection, and we have clear evidence from history that
[3:02:24] Speaker 2: people were pretending to be resurrected from the dead by
[3:02:28] Speaker 2: having impostors, sometimes on purpose, sometimes not on purpose.
[3:02:33] Speaker 1: So you were literally saying that the best explanation is
[3:02:37] Speaker 1: Jesus had a twin or someone looked just like him,
[3:02:40] Speaker 1: he went through a bloody execution. These disciples who knew
[3:02:44] Speaker 1: Jesus were just so dumbfound is so grief stricken that
[3:02:47] Speaker 1: when he popped up in these various locations, they said, Hey,
[3:02:51] Speaker 1: this guy is alive, let's start a new religion. Let's
[3:02:54] Speaker 1: go die for this, let's proclaim it. That's your theory.
[3:02:57] Speaker 3: We have historical president for this with Nero.
[3:03:00] Speaker 2: In fact, there was a multiple impostors of Nero after
[3:03:04] Speaker 2: his death, claiming to be the resurrected Nero. One of
[3:03:07] Speaker 2: them so successful that they convinced the Parthians to go
[3:03:10] Speaker 2: to war with the Romans, to march back into Rome
[3:03:13] Speaker 2: and put him on the throne, being that he's now
[3:03:15] Speaker 2: the resurrected, deified Nero.
[3:03:17] Speaker 3: They went to war and got utterly annihilated.
[3:03:20] Speaker 2: The Rising from the Dead impostors were pretty abundant in
[3:03:24] Speaker 2: that time period.
[3:03:26] Speaker 1: So do you think the Jews thought that that was
[3:03:28] Speaker 1: what the Messiah was going to do?
[3:03:30] Speaker 2: No, This is actually one of the reasons why Christianity
[3:03:33] Speaker 2: just simply isn't true, because the Jewish Messiah that is
[3:03:36] Speaker 2: in the Hebrew Bible has nothing to do with Jesus.
[3:03:39] Speaker 2: In fact, all of the in fact, in fact, all
[3:03:43] Speaker 2: of the prophecies in the New Testament about Jesus, half
[3:03:47] Speaker 2: of them aren't even real prophecies. They're just fallacious, out
[3:03:49] Speaker 2: of context quotations from the Old Testament and the ones
[3:03:53] Speaker 2: that our prophecies are cherry picked and ignore the actual
[3:03:55] Speaker 2: context of the prophecy. And if you just read the
[3:03:58] Speaker 2: entire prophecy, it's quite clear that he did actually fulfill them.
[3:04:01] Speaker 2: Like a common one is Zacharyan nine to nine, when
[3:04:03] Speaker 2: he rides the donkey into Jerusalem. That's quoted in Matthew
[3:04:06] Speaker 2: twenty one. But if you just read zach ry chapter nine,
[3:04:09] Speaker 2: it's quite clear that it's an actual king who's going
[3:04:12] Speaker 2: to deal with Israel's enemies, which Jesus never did.
[3:04:15] Speaker 1: Sure, So that's my whole point. So the Second Temple
[3:04:18] Speaker 1: Judaism did not expect the Messiah to be a dying,
[3:04:22] Speaker 1: rising Messiah, right, They would not expect this at all.
[3:04:25] Speaker 1: This is not all because the Old Testaments, so otherwise
[3:04:30] Speaker 1: hallucinations things that predictions are having the you know, expecting
[3:04:36] Speaker 1: something is what usually tends people to believe in miracles
[3:04:39] Speaker 1: and things like this that probably didn't happen.
[3:04:41] Speaker 2: Well expected him to.
[3:04:44] Speaker 1: These early Jews had no expectation.
[3:04:46] Speaker 2: That Noss the disciples expected him to.
[3:04:49] Speaker 1: They definitely did not.
[3:04:52] Speaker 2: They certainly did according to your own book.
[3:04:55] Speaker 1: The disciples thought that their Messiah was going to die
[3:04:58] Speaker 1: and rise again.
[3:04:59] Speaker 2: Jesus said in the Gospels on multiple occasions that it's
[3:05:03] Speaker 2: he he must, he must do it to.
[3:05:05] Speaker 1: Fulfill what is in the scriptures.
[3:05:07] Speaker 2: Now, whether or not they understand, whether or not they
[3:05:09] Speaker 2: accepted it at the time, he said, it is different
[3:05:11] Speaker 2: than whether or not they accepted it after they were
[3:05:13] Speaker 2: told that it happened. But you're actually running away from
[3:05:16] Speaker 2: the point that I'm making, which is that the Messiah
[3:05:19] Speaker 2: of the Old Testament is nothing like the Messiah of
[3:05:22] Speaker 2: the New Testament. Jesus didn't fulfill a single Messianic prophecy
[3:05:26] Speaker 2: the New Testaments, lying through their their single ancient near
[3:05:29] Speaker 2: Eastern tooth.
[3:05:32] Speaker 1: Okay, uh, we'll just move on from that. On Lasting fifteen.
[3:05:38] Speaker 3: Well, we're gonna so we're gonna read a passage. My
[3:05:41] Speaker 3: thoughts is I'm going to read.
[3:05:42] Speaker 1: You really just want to hammer on stuff you're comfortable with, Okay,
[3:05:45] Speaker 1: so let's go.
[3:05:46] Speaker 2: No, the problem is we talk about this nonsense over
[3:05:48] Speaker 2: and over again and it doesn't lead anywhere.
[3:05:50] Speaker 1: Right.
[3:05:50] Speaker 2: Well, you, the creed is first. The creed is irrelevant.
[3:05:55] Speaker 2: We're gonna read from Jeremiah thirty one because we're still talking.
[3:05:59] Speaker 2: You're running from prophecies. So we're going to read one
[3:06:02] Speaker 2: and I'm going to show to you I brought up
[3:06:05] Speaker 2: prophecies and you're running from it. So in Jeremiah it
[3:06:08] Speaker 2: says something really interesting. Do you know what's happening in Jeremiah?
[3:06:11] Speaker 2: Have you read all of it?
[3:06:14] Speaker 7: Sir?
[3:06:15] Speaker 2: No, sir, okay. Do you know that Jeremiah predicted that
[3:06:18] Speaker 2: the Israelites would go into captivity in Babylon and then
[3:06:21] Speaker 2: come back after a period of seventy years and then
[3:06:24] Speaker 2: get restored? Sure, okay, you accept that that is what
[3:06:27] Speaker 2: Jeremiah said?
[3:06:28] Speaker 1: All right, Oh, I'll take your word for it. I
[3:06:31] Speaker 1: don't know my Old Testament super well.
[3:06:34] Speaker 2: So figured as much. In Jeremiah thirty one fifteen it
[3:06:36] Speaker 2: says does say it's the Lord. A voice is heard
[3:06:38] Speaker 2: in rama, lamentation and bitter weeping. Rachel is weeping for
[3:06:41] Speaker 2: her children. She refused to be comforted for her children
[3:06:44] Speaker 2: because they are no more. Thus, saith the Lord, keep
[3:06:47] Speaker 2: your voice from weeping and your eyes from tears, for
[3:06:49] Speaker 2: there is a reward for your work, says the Lord.
[3:06:51] Speaker 2: They shall come back from the land of the enemy.
[3:06:54] Speaker 2: There is hope for your future, says the Lord, your
[3:06:56] Speaker 2: children shall come back to their own country. What do
[3:06:59] Speaker 2: you think that's about.
[3:07:02] Speaker 1: I have no idea.
[3:07:04] Speaker 3: You can't just into it. What the words mean?
[3:07:07] Speaker 1: No idea?
[3:07:08] Speaker 2: Well, okay, Well, Jeremiah's writing as they're being led away
[3:07:11] Speaker 2: captive by the Babylonians, and he's saying, it's okay, they're
[3:07:14] Speaker 2: going to come back from the land of the enemy.
[3:07:16] Speaker 2: They're going to come back to their own country. What
[3:07:18] Speaker 2: do you think that means?
[3:07:19] Speaker 1: It looks like the children are going to come back
[3:07:21] Speaker 1: to their own country.
[3:07:22] Speaker 2: Yeah, because he predicted it like five times over the
[3:07:24] Speaker 2: course of the book. Okay, so it's pretty clear that
[3:07:27] Speaker 2: Jara's making a prediction about what's going to happen to
[3:07:30] Speaker 2: the Israelites being carried away into captivity.
[3:07:33] Speaker 1: Right.
[3:07:34] Speaker 2: Sure, is there a good reason why I would think
[3:07:36] Speaker 2: that this is about anything?
[3:07:37] Speaker 1: But that I have no idea. I haven't. I'm just
[3:07:41] Speaker 1: going to take your word for it for now. Sure.
[3:07:43] Speaker 2: Well, the problem is if you go to Matthew, Matthew
[3:07:47] Speaker 2: is completely lying to the audience, suggesting that this prophecy
[3:07:50] Speaker 2: was actually about the children that were executed in and
[3:07:53] Speaker 2: around Bethlehem. It says then what had been spoken through
[3:07:56] Speaker 2: the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled. A voice was heard in
[3:07:59] Speaker 2: Rama wailing in loud lamentation, Rachel weeping for her children.
[3:08:03] Speaker 2: She refused to be consoled because they are no more.
[3:08:05] Speaker 2: That's not what the prophecy is about. The prophecy is
[3:08:07] Speaker 2: not about a bunch of kids being murdered in Bethlehem's
[3:08:10] Speaker 2: at the time.
[3:08:10] Speaker 1: Of the messiety missing. These Christians clearly interpreted these things
[3:08:15] Speaker 1: differently than the Jews did before.
[3:08:18] Speaker 2: That doesn't they say, we can ignore the context, we
[3:08:23] Speaker 2: can ignore the actual prediction of the prophecy and just
[3:08:26] Speaker 2: say it means whatever we needed to mean.
[3:08:29] Speaker 1: Well, if Jesus rose from the dead, they're actually looking
[3:08:31] Speaker 1: at these prophecies from a different lens than what Jews
[3:08:34] Speaker 1: classically thought their Messiah was going to be.
[3:08:36] Speaker 3: It doesn't fix the problem.
[3:08:37] Speaker 2: It doesn't make the meaning of the prophecy any different
[3:08:40] Speaker 2: than what the actual meaning of the prophecy is. And
[3:08:42] Speaker 2: see got you've got the you've got the cart before
[3:08:45] Speaker 2: the horse. You're saying that, you're saying that because Jesus
[3:08:50] Speaker 2: rose from the dead, we should accept these bad hermeneutics
[3:08:54] Speaker 2: laid out in the New Testament but I say it's
[3:08:56] Speaker 2: the opposite, because the New Testament couldn't even use proper hermeneutics.
[3:09:01] Speaker 2: I'm sure as hell not going to believe that Jesus
[3:09:03] Speaker 2: rose from the dead. The same person who the board,
[3:09:07] Speaker 2: the same person who can't read Jeremiah and tell you
[3:09:11] Speaker 2: what it's actually about. I'm not going to believe when
[3:09:14] Speaker 2: they say that a person rose from the dead. It's
[3:09:16] Speaker 2: clearly not what he was saying. He wasn't talking about
[3:09:19] Speaker 2: the children in Bethlehem.
[3:09:22] Speaker 1: Cool, So what's your what's so one Corinthians fifteen, what's.
[3:09:27] Speaker 2: He wants to run from all my talking points so bad?
[3:09:30] Speaker 1: I know you're talking.
[3:09:32] Speaker 2: Let me just let me put my tail between my
[3:09:34] Speaker 2: legs and run away from all of your talking points
[3:09:36] Speaker 2: that I have no actual answer answer for.
[3:09:38] Speaker 1: I didn't bring up prophecy at all.
[3:09:41] Speaker 2: I did, I did, and as you did. As it
[3:09:43] Speaker 2: turns out, listen, I don't know if you know this.
[3:09:45] Speaker 2: You're right, I don't know if you know this. But
[3:09:48] Speaker 2: you're on my live stream. Sometimes I'm allowed to talk
[3:09:50] Speaker 2: about a topic that I want to talk about on
[3:09:52] Speaker 2: my live stream, which is why I brought up, which
[3:09:55] Speaker 2: is why I brought up, which is why I brought
[3:09:57] Speaker 2: up which is why I brought up the topic of prophecies,
[3:10:01] Speaker 2: because I let you go down and meandering conversation that
[3:10:05] Speaker 2: everybody in my audience has heard four thousand times, it
[3:10:07] Speaker 2: doesn't actually go anywhere. And now I'm going to demonstrate
[3:10:10] Speaker 2: to you why I don't believe that Jesus resurrected from
[3:10:14] Speaker 2: the dead. And point number one is because the people
[3:10:17] Speaker 2: claiming that he resurrected from the dead are making comparable
[3:10:20] Speaker 2: claims to other people in history who we don't believe
[3:10:23] Speaker 2: resurrection from the dead. To point number two is that
[3:10:25] Speaker 2: they're making other outlandish claims like Jesus fulfilling prophecies that
[3:10:30] Speaker 2: aren't actually prophecies about Jesus. And because these people are
[3:10:33] Speaker 2: making outlandish claims that I don't believe to be true,
[3:10:37] Speaker 2: I'm serious hell not going to believe it when they
[3:10:38] Speaker 2: say a guy rose from the dead.
[3:10:43] Speaker 1: Okay, I just I think that we just agree to
[3:10:47] Speaker 1: disagree on that. I think the evidence, there's no evidence.
[3:10:50] Speaker 1: It is hilarious. Yeah, So the evidence is we have
[3:10:52] Speaker 1: early independent attestation, eyewitness testimony. Do you have various So
[3:11:00] Speaker 1: you don't think First Christians fifteen is not early independent
[3:11:04] Speaker 1: at a station for Jesus at all.
[3:11:06] Speaker 2: It's an independent attestation that some people told Paul something
[3:11:09] Speaker 2: in Paul believe.
[3:11:10] Speaker 1: You just said, we don't have any It's.
[3:11:13] Speaker 2: It's independent verification that Paul knew people that Paul I
[3:11:18] Speaker 2: didn't say that. Listen carefully. I'm saying Paul knew people
[3:11:22] Speaker 2: that believed something. That's all that's evidence for.
[3:11:25] Speaker 1: Do you so, where do you think Paul got this
[3:11:28] Speaker 1: this information from?
[3:11:29] Speaker 2: Well, shit, if you told us, we'd know.
[3:11:32] Speaker 1: So we have no idea, you know. Do you think
[3:11:34] Speaker 1: atheist scholars.
[3:11:35] Speaker 2: Well, clearly, clearly Paul got it from Christians.
[3:11:39] Speaker 1: Do you think atheist scholars don't? I don't.
[3:11:42] Speaker 2: I don't think it's like a confusing thing to believe
[3:11:46] Speaker 2: that Paul is repeating something that he's heard from other Christians,
[3:11:50] Speaker 2: especially because Christians existed before Paul was a Christian, which
[3:11:54] Speaker 2: is why he had to go and have a meeting
[3:11:55] Speaker 2: with the disciples. And then we get a delightful little
[3:11:59] Speaker 2: sequence in Acts chapter fifteen, and then subsequently on his
[3:12:02] Speaker 2: second missionary journey when he writes to the Corinthian Church
[3:12:06] Speaker 2: completely contradicts what happened in Acts chapter fifteen. So yeah, listen,
[3:12:11] Speaker 2: before Paul Paul was clearly to move on. Clearly, Paul
[3:12:17] Speaker 2: was clearly in dialogue with the Christians that came before him,
[3:12:20] Speaker 2: and those Christians that came before him clearly believed things.
[3:12:24] Speaker 2: And I agree there were Christians before Paul who believed things.
[3:12:28] Speaker 1: So you made the claim that there's zero independent early
[3:12:31] Speaker 1: attestation for Jesus.
[3:12:33] Speaker 2: Christ I witness attestation.
[3:12:36] Speaker 1: Oh I didn't. I missed this.
[3:12:38] Speaker 3: Those were your words, not mine.
[3:12:40] Speaker 1: So you're saying we don't have any independent eyewitness testimony,
[3:12:44] Speaker 1: not even one shred of it.
[3:12:46] Speaker 2: We've got the same testimony that we've got for all
[3:12:49] Speaker 2: the other resurrection miracle claims. We've got people, we.
[3:12:52] Speaker 1: Do other testimonies, we have archaeological evidence for the other's testimony.
[3:12:58] Speaker 3: So yes, we have all of those things.
[3:13:00] Speaker 2: So what we have are testimonies of people claiming to
[3:13:05] Speaker 2: know somebody who did a thing. And then we've got
[3:13:07] Speaker 2: testimony firsthand of people being healed. We've got hundreds of
[3:13:11] Speaker 2: testimonies of people being healed by the God Asclepius at
[3:13:15] Speaker 2: one of the various ASCLEPII just not a problem. Again,
[3:13:20] Speaker 2: claims of resurrection and healing from this time period are abundant.
[3:13:24] Speaker 2: We've got lots of it. So again, I'm not going
[3:13:28] Speaker 2: to treat the Bible any differently than I would treat
[3:13:30] Speaker 2: any other text from the time period. You're the one
[3:13:33] Speaker 2: special pleading for the Bible, saying no, no, no, it's not
[3:13:36] Speaker 2: like the writings of Tacitus or Suetonius. It's not like
[3:13:39] Speaker 2: the writings of Heroditus. It's not like the writings in
[3:13:42] Speaker 2: the Talmud. No, no, no, this is special. Don't believe
[3:13:46] Speaker 2: the miracles in Tacitus and Suetonius. Don't believe the miracles
[3:13:50] Speaker 2: in the Talmud. Don't believe the miracles or the resurrections
[3:13:54] Speaker 2: in Herodotus. But this, this miracle story, you got to
[3:13:57] Speaker 2: believe this one.
[3:13:58] Speaker 1: So what miracles claims him outside of the New Testament?
[3:14:02] Speaker 1: Were you you mentioned one of them are resurrecting God?
[3:14:06] Speaker 3: Yeah, there's a bunch of them.
[3:14:08] Speaker 2: Which one do you want?
[3:14:08] Speaker 1: Just give me one, Just give me one.
[3:14:10] Speaker 2: Ats.
[3:14:12] Speaker 1: So, does Alcestis have eyewitness testimony of his resurrection?
[3:14:17] Speaker 2: Yeah? Alcestis does. Also, Uh, before we move on, calroad,
[3:14:21] Speaker 2: does a Marxist does Cis?
[3:14:24] Speaker 1: Real quick? Before we move on? So, what's the eyewitness
[3:14:27] Speaker 1: testimony for our Sestis?
[3:14:28] Speaker 2: You can read about the eyewitnesses in a Pithianis, if
[3:14:33] Speaker 2: I remember correctly.
[3:14:35] Speaker 1: So Pithianis is conveying what eyewitnesses saw, that this deity rise.
[3:14:41] Speaker 2: Again, Oh, I don't think is not a deity.
[3:14:46] Speaker 1: Okay, So they claim that Cestis rose from the dead.
[3:14:49] Speaker 1: They they have. We have independent eyewitness testimony, especially multiple
[3:14:55] Speaker 1: and independent at a station, that this guy rose from
[3:14:58] Speaker 1: the dead.
[3:14:58] Speaker 2: We have at least two of them. And when it
[3:15:00] Speaker 2: comes to other resurrection accounts like the ones from Aristeus,
[3:15:04] Speaker 2: we've got like four or five.
[3:15:08] Speaker 3: We've got for the resurrection of Aristeus.
[3:15:11] Speaker 2: We've got Herodotus, we've got Pliny, we've got Plutarch. And
[3:15:17] Speaker 2: origin isn't confirming It's I didn't say that they are
[3:15:25] Speaker 2: the eyewitnesses. They're describing what the eyewitnesses saw the same
[3:15:30] Speaker 2: the same way that the Gospels are describing what the
[3:15:33] Speaker 2: eyewitnesses saw. So again I'm saying that the witness testimony
[3:15:38] Speaker 2: that we have in the Gospels, we have comparable witness
[3:15:41] Speaker 2: testimony to other events the Gospels. Again, I don't believe
[3:15:45] Speaker 2: our eyewitness testimonies. They're not saying here is exactly what
[3:15:49] Speaker 2: I saw. They're relaying somebody else's vision or somebody else's story,
[3:15:54] Speaker 2: same thing, with the same thing, with the writings of
[3:15:58] Speaker 2: the Roman and Greek has.
[3:16:01] Speaker 1: Luke is clearly doing that. He says it bluntly. Mark
[3:16:07] Speaker 1: Mark does not say that bluntly. He doesn't say that
[3:16:11] Speaker 1: at all.
[3:16:12] Speaker 2: Is Mark writing for Peter or was an eyewitness?
[3:16:15] Speaker 1: I'm just saying in his text, was Mark and eyewitness? No? Clearly?
[3:16:19] Speaker 2: Oh wait, so then he's not an early eyewitness attestation.
[3:16:22] Speaker 1: Is yeah, I'm saying. He does not say it explicitly
[3:16:25] Speaker 1: as Luke does. Luke is saying, Hey, I'm getting this
[3:16:28] Speaker 1: information from my witnesses. I think the evidence points towards
[3:16:32] Speaker 1: he is getting this evidence for this stuff from eyewitnesses.
[3:16:35] Speaker 1: You don't have to believe it, but it sure seems.
[3:16:37] Speaker 2: Like that's what I said. I'm said, the resurrection accounts
[3:16:39] Speaker 2: of these other people who did miracles and resurrected are
[3:16:43] Speaker 2: people collecting testimony of the actual eyewitnesses.
[3:16:48] Speaker 1: And these testimonies within just the living memory of them,
[3:16:51] Speaker 1: and they're multiple, independent attested. Because I have looked at
[3:16:55] Speaker 1: some of this stuff and doesn't even look close to
[3:16:57] Speaker 1: the evidence of the New Testament.
[3:16:59] Speaker 2: Well, I disagree. I think when we look at like Plinyes,
[3:17:03] Speaker 2: natural History, and Herodotus. They're writing what they think are
[3:17:06] Speaker 2: true stories. They're not making stuff up, they're not doing mythologies,
[3:17:10] Speaker 2: they're writing actual like histories.
[3:17:14] Speaker 1: Sure, there's a reason why Anthony Flew when he was
[3:17:17] Speaker 1: an atheist, said the miracle claims of Jesus rising from
[3:17:21] Speaker 1: a dead completely outweigh any miracle claims of any other religion.
[3:17:25] Speaker 3: Well I would disagree.
[3:17:27] Speaker 1: Okay, Well, I'm just going to go with the scholars
[3:17:30] Speaker 1: and the people who actually study this and who what
[3:17:33] Speaker 1: they go with, and say, yeah, these Jews did not
[3:17:36] Speaker 1: get their information from other dying and rising messiahs. This
[3:17:39] Speaker 1: is clearly you know, I would.
[3:17:41] Speaker 2: Certainly disagree with with those concepts. And there's lots of
[3:17:44] Speaker 2: scholars who certainly believe that the Gospels shaped after the
[3:17:48] Speaker 2: mythologies of their time.
[3:17:51] Speaker 1: I want your audience to know if you go into
[3:17:52] Speaker 1: a university and talk to a New Testament scholar, I did,
[3:17:57] Speaker 1: but they're not going to believe what you're sing.
[3:17:59] Speaker 2: I don't know if you know this, Saucy already did.
[3:18:01] Speaker 2: I went to Bible college and seminary, which is why,
[3:18:03] Speaker 2: which is why when you when you classify, when you classify,
[3:18:08] Speaker 2: when you classify biblical scholarship in one particular light. I
[3:18:13] Speaker 2: know that you're only using scholars that you think agree
[3:18:16] Speaker 2: with your position, But there are lots.
[3:18:17] Speaker 4: Of scholarships who disagree with with your particular position.
[3:18:22] Speaker 1: I mentioned several that were atheists. Don't think I've mentioned
[3:18:24] Speaker 1: one biblical scholar.
[3:18:26] Speaker 2: But you're referencing the material that you think agrees with you.
[3:18:28] Speaker 2: Whether or not they're atheists or not is irrelevant.
[3:18:31] Speaker 1: Right.
[3:18:31] Speaker 2: What you're saying is I like what these particular scholars say,
[3:18:36] Speaker 2: and therefore I'm going to utilize their material. Now you
[3:18:38] Speaker 2: think it's more powerful material because they're atheists. I don't
[3:18:41] Speaker 2: think that matters to me. I'm willing to.
[3:18:44] Speaker 1: I'm willing to.
[3:18:45] Speaker 2: I'm willing to accept scholar I'm willing to. I'm willing
[3:18:48] Speaker 2: to accept scholarship from Christians. I don't think it matters
[3:18:52] Speaker 2: if the scholarship comes from a Christian or non Christian.
[3:18:55] Speaker 2: I think scholarship is a scholarship. So I don't believe
[3:18:59] Speaker 2: that saying, well, a fust scholars say something is a
[3:19:01] Speaker 2: more powerful argument than saying Christian scholars right, I'm just looking.
[3:19:06] Speaker 1: At the Christian scholars that disagree with you.
[3:19:09] Speaker 2: I'm sure, and there are dozens and dozens of scholars
[3:19:14] Speaker 2: that would disagree with your position and say, no, that
[3:19:16] Speaker 2: the New Testament manuscripts are just like are just like
[3:19:20] Speaker 2: the other mythologies of its time period, or even just
[3:19:23] Speaker 2: like the other biographies of its time period. For example,
[3:19:27] Speaker 2: the writings of Heroditis. Herodotis records lots of miracles and
[3:19:31] Speaker 2: even the resurrection of Aristeus. But I don't believe that
[3:19:34] Speaker 2: Aristius resurrection of the dead, and neither to you.
[3:19:38] Speaker 1: But that that is not multiply independently attested by other
[3:19:42] Speaker 1: different writers.
[3:19:43] Speaker 2: It is so.
[3:19:45] Speaker 1: It is so who else besides Herodotus mentions this.
[3:19:49] Speaker 3: Pliny the Elder.
[3:19:53] Speaker 1: And he.
[3:19:55] Speaker 2: And he was an eyewitness, Apollonius and Plutarch all refer
[3:20:00] Speaker 2: to the resurrection of Ristheus. And in those histories you'll
[3:20:03] Speaker 2: find that, yes, they are relaying the testimony of other
[3:20:07] Speaker 2: people who were making the actual reports. Says. It is
[3:20:12] Speaker 2: reported that Aristeus the Proconesian that at the very time
[3:20:16] Speaker 2: of his death in a fuller shop in Proconesis, many
[3:20:19] Speaker 2: saw him insistently teaching. This kind of thing happened often.
[3:20:28] Speaker 2: The Gospels are not unique.
[3:20:33] Speaker 1: Okay, I will look up and see if the evidence
[3:20:37] Speaker 1: is comparable of the same amount of multiply independent early
[3:20:41] Speaker 1: attestation of the Gospels that we'd see outside of Gospels,
[3:20:45] Speaker 1: as well to Aristeus, and see if they are exactly
[3:20:49] Speaker 1: apples to apples, Because it sounds like you're saying the
[3:20:52] Speaker 1: evidence for Aristeus is exactly the same as Jesus Christ.
[3:20:56] Speaker 2: I didn't say it's exactly the same. I'm saying it's comparable,
[3:20:59] Speaker 2: which is one of the reasons why I don't believe
[3:21:01] Speaker 2: that Aristius rose from the dead, and I don't believe
[3:21:04] Speaker 2: that Jesus rose from the dead. And we've got lots
[3:21:06] Speaker 2: of evidence from the ancient world that people were fond
[3:21:09] Speaker 2: of pretending to be resurrected individuals, and this is this
[3:21:14] Speaker 2: is obviously something that could have happened easily to Jesus' followers,
[3:21:18] Speaker 2: because we know it happened to other people in other religions.
[3:21:21] Speaker 1: So what's so, what's say I'm guessing you think that
[3:21:24] Speaker 1: maybe one person had a vision and then just told
[3:21:27] Speaker 1: other people, And what's what's your naturalistic theory of that
[3:21:31] Speaker 1: fits the data.
[3:21:32] Speaker 2: I already told you there was an impostor that pretended
[3:21:36] Speaker 2: to be the resurrected Jesus the same way. We see
[3:21:39] Speaker 2: also in the ancient history of the time period, we
[3:21:42] Speaker 2: have got lots of people.
[3:21:43] Speaker 1: Can you name a couple of scholars that I agree
[3:21:45] Speaker 1: with you on that?
[3:21:46] Speaker 2: I'm sure I could. So almost every New Testament scholar
[3:21:49] Speaker 2: agrees in the Nero redivivus legend that account Jesus Christ.
[3:21:54] Speaker 2: That accounts for the vision right that some people are
[3:22:02] Speaker 2: talking about right now. So the minimum witnesses argument right
[3:22:05] Speaker 2: now is resting on like a mystical vision right. So
[3:22:08] Speaker 2: for example, like certain scholars would agree that maybe this
[3:22:13] Speaker 2: could account for it. But there are a lot of
[3:22:15] Speaker 2: scholars that are willing to tell you and they will
[3:22:17] Speaker 2: admit in most of their commentaries, especially on the Book
[3:22:20] Speaker 2: of Revelation, like like Kester and Josephine Ford and others,
[3:22:27] Speaker 2: that yeah, yeah, the idea that people in the first
[3:22:30] Speaker 2: century or around that time period had impostors pretending to
[3:22:34] Speaker 2: be resurrected people, specifically Nero in this particular case, was common.
[3:22:39] Speaker 1: So what scholars say that Jesus Christ, that it fits
[3:22:43] Speaker 1: for Jesus Christ is that he had an impostor.
[3:22:45] Speaker 2: Oh, I have no idea. I've never surveyed the literature.
[3:22:49] Speaker 2: I never surveyed the literature. Whether or not I never
[3:22:53] Speaker 2: surveyed the literature, whether or not scholars believe there was
[3:22:56] Speaker 2: an impostor. All I can tell you is that I
[3:22:59] Speaker 2: have surveyed, read all I had. All I can say
[3:23:02] Speaker 2: is I have surveyed the ancient literature, and in the
[3:23:04] Speaker 2: ancient literature there is an abundance of examples of people
[3:23:08] Speaker 2: that Christianity.
[3:23:09] Speaker 3: There was anund No I left Christianity. It's not true.
[3:23:12] Speaker 1: There's an a bunch of you're saying it's not true
[3:23:14] Speaker 1: because you have a hunch, Well, it's not true.
[3:23:16] Speaker 2: Because Jesus didn't fulfill any of the Messianic prophecies.
[3:23:20] Speaker 1: But so you're saying because of that, and then you
[3:23:23] Speaker 1: have a hunch that an impostor came, All this is
[3:23:27] Speaker 1: just completely made up.
[3:23:28] Speaker 2: No, I'm saying that the evidence that I have in
[3:23:32] Speaker 2: front of me is that the Gospel author is I
[3:23:35] Speaker 2: said evidence. The evidence that I have in front of me,
[3:23:38] Speaker 2: the Gospel authors fundamentally couldn't read or interpret the Hebrew Bible.
[3:23:42] Speaker 2: They misapplied it on purpose to fit Jesus. They did
[3:23:45] Speaker 2: the sharpshooter fallacy, all because they couldn't let go of
[3:23:49] Speaker 2: the fact that their chosen Messiah died rather than doing
[3:23:52] Speaker 2: what the prophecies actually predicted he would be doing. And
[3:23:56] Speaker 2: the evidence and the evidence that he rose from the
[3:23:59] Speaker 2: dead to me is not compelling because there's lots of
[3:24:01] Speaker 2: the evidence of people rising from it. Because there's lots
[3:24:05] Speaker 2: of people rising from the dead in the first century.
[3:24:08] Speaker 2: I don't believe that any of those people rose from
[3:24:10] Speaker 2: the dead, and I certainly don't believe that Jesus rose
[3:24:12] Speaker 2: from dead. And if Jesus was God, he'd be smart
[3:24:13] Speaker 2: enough to know that if he rose from the dead,
[3:24:15] Speaker 2: he shouldn't have disappeared after a period of forty days
[3:24:19] Speaker 2: sometimes longer, depending on which gospel you're reading or which
[3:24:22] Speaker 2: part of the text you're reading. He shouldn't have disappeared.
[3:24:24] Speaker 2: He should have actually stuck around saying he didn't do that.
[3:24:26] Speaker 2: The reason why these these resurrected figures always disappear in
[3:24:30] Speaker 2: the history is because they didn't actually resurrect.
[3:24:34] Speaker 1: So why do you think these early Jews made this up?
[3:24:37] Speaker 2: I don't think they were early Jews. The earliest Christians,
[3:24:40] Speaker 2: for the most part, seemed to be non Jews, which
[3:24:42] Speaker 2: is why the Gospels are which is why the Gospels
[3:24:46] Speaker 2: are openly hostile towards the Jewish people. And again, I
[3:24:51] Speaker 2: have no evidence that I have no evidence. I have
[3:24:56] Speaker 2: no evidence of the claims that these disciples made. We
[3:24:59] Speaker 2: don't have their testimonies. They didn't leave us their testimonies.
[3:25:03] Speaker 1: We don't We don't have We have no idea what
[3:25:05] Speaker 1: Paul thought.
[3:25:06] Speaker 2: We know what Paul.
[3:25:08] Speaker 3: We know what Paul thought because he wrote letters.
[3:25:11] Speaker 1: If the disciples, if.
[3:25:13] Speaker 2: The disciples, we don't know. We don't know who wrote Matthew.
[3:25:17] Speaker 2: That's what I'm saying. No, we don't.
[3:25:19] Speaker 1: We have no clue. Okay, So it just sounds until.
[3:25:23] Speaker 2: You could establish the authorship of the Gospels, you don't
[3:25:25] Speaker 2: know what Matthew until attributa certainly don't. So until you
[3:25:32] Speaker 2: can establish that Matthew wrote Matthew, you don't know what
[3:25:35] Speaker 2: Matthew thinks. Until you can establish that Luke wrote Luke.
[3:25:39] Speaker 2: You don't know what Luke thinks, right, So what we know.
[3:25:44] Speaker 2: So what we know is that Luke doesn't appear to
[3:25:46] Speaker 2: be Jewish. Mark could be Jewish.
[3:25:49] Speaker 1: We don't know.
[3:25:51] Speaker 2: John is clearly openly hostile towards the Jews. Matthew is
[3:25:55] Speaker 2: openly hostile for the Jews, and The way that they're
[3:25:58] Speaker 2: using both in John in Matthew, the way they're using
[3:26:01] Speaker 2: the Old Testament is incongruent with how interpreting texts are
[3:26:06] Speaker 2: actually to be used. Like you don't get to go
[3:26:08] Speaker 2: to a random psalm and say this psalm is a
[3:26:11] Speaker 2: prophecy because I like what it says and it validates
[3:26:14] Speaker 2: my position. Therefore it's just a prophecy. That's not how
[3:26:17] Speaker 2: that works. This is a starption fallacy. Why can't that
[3:26:20] Speaker 2: be the case? Why can't they when Jesus Christ Psalm
[3:26:22] Speaker 2: twenty two, Why can't they say, hey, this is a
[3:26:25] Speaker 2: double prophecy.
[3:26:26] Speaker 1: It's David is talking about his situation, but it clearly
[3:26:30] Speaker 1: looks like he's talking about crucifixion. Why can't the New
[3:26:34] Speaker 1: Christian movement just said, hey, look, this seems like it's
[3:26:37] Speaker 1: a prophecy. We're going to quote it. It doesn't mean
[3:26:39] Speaker 1: it's true or false. It's just I think what you're here.
[3:26:42] Speaker 2: They're they're welcome to do that, but then they would
[3:26:44] Speaker 2: be wrong. The minute you tell me that there's prophecies
[3:26:46] Speaker 2: that are completely disconnected from the original context of the text,
[3:26:51] Speaker 2: then I can make the text say anything. I can
[3:26:53] Speaker 2: make the entire Old Testament predict my coming. As long
[3:26:56] Speaker 2: as I get to ignore the context, as long as
[3:26:58] Speaker 2: I get to ignore the genre, I can make the
[3:27:00] Speaker 2: Old Testament say anything I wanted to.
[3:27:05] Speaker 7: Sure, Okay, when I was like when I was in
[3:27:10] Speaker 7: when I was in the seminary, I literally had a
[3:27:12] Speaker 7: professor that said, if you turn in an exit Jesus
[3:27:16] Speaker 7: paper that uses the same level of exit Jesus that
[3:27:19] Speaker 7: the New Testament author is used with the Old Testament,
[3:27:21] Speaker 7: you'll get an f Because the Old Testament wasn't executed properly.
[3:27:26] Speaker 2: What they did is they stripped it of its context.
[3:27:28] Speaker 2: They stripped it of its original meaning. They said, no, no, no,
[3:27:31] Speaker 2: now it has a new meaning, and we're going to
[3:27:33] Speaker 2: tell you what that new meaning is.
[3:27:34] Speaker 3: Well, congratulations. I could do the same thing.
[3:27:37] Speaker 2: I can strip the Old Testament away from its context,
[3:27:39] Speaker 2: and I can tell you that it's about me.
[3:27:42] Speaker 1: That means I wrote a donkey? Am I the miss
[3:27:46] Speaker 1: You would just have a beef with how they interpreted
[3:27:48] Speaker 1: Old Testament texts.
[3:27:49] Speaker 2: No, I'm saying, the people that are lying to me
[3:27:51] Speaker 2: about the Old Testament, I'm not going to believe that
[3:27:54] Speaker 2: the resurrection happened because the people that were lying about
[3:27:57] Speaker 2: the Old Testament are not telling the truth about the
[3:28:00] Speaker 2: resurrection either.
[3:28:01] Speaker 1: So I don't know if you need to go. But Luke,
[3:28:05] Speaker 1: so Luke was not a Jew and claim he's a Jew.
[3:28:08] Speaker 1: We know he's a Greek. You know, he's a convert
[3:28:11] Speaker 1: to Christianity. He's extremely smart. Even atheist or you know,
[3:28:15] Speaker 1: secular historians will say he's a crazy smart historian. He
[3:28:18] Speaker 1: gets all these titles right, you know, sailing Times. Right.
[3:28:24] Speaker 1: He seems like he's an eyewitness him sorry call what
[3:28:33] Speaker 1: he is clearly interviewing eyewitnesses, and he's also an axe
[3:28:39] Speaker 1: in it looks like he's interviewing people in his gospel, right.
[3:28:45] Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, he's taking somebody else's testimony. We don't know
[3:28:48] Speaker 2: who it is.
[3:28:49] Speaker 1: Yeah, we don't know who it is. But it seems
[3:28:51] Speaker 1: like with the the data we don't have, of the
[3:28:54] Speaker 1: sayings that he's using in the archaeology he's talking about
[3:28:58] Speaker 1: the titles he's using, that this is coming from early Jerusalem,
[3:29:04] Speaker 1: Palestine a region. So I don't know why. It just
[3:29:08] Speaker 1: means like he is likely talking to eyewitnesses that were
[3:29:11] Speaker 1: alive during the life of Jesus.
[3:29:13] Speaker 2: No, that's not the case, because Herodotus was clearly talking
[3:29:16] Speaker 2: to people that were alive who knew the archaeology and
[3:29:18] Speaker 2: geography of the period of Prokonesis. But you don't believe
[3:29:22] Speaker 2: that Eristheus of Proconesis rose from the dead either. The
[3:29:25] Speaker 2: fact that a historian was abled to that, the.
[3:29:27] Speaker 1: Fact that there's zero.
[3:29:30] Speaker 2: Winness, the fact that a historian is capable of identifying people, places,
[3:29:34] Speaker 2: and things from the time period of the text that
[3:29:36] Speaker 2: they're writing from has no bearing on whether or not
[3:29:39] Speaker 2: the supernatural stuff in the text happened.
[3:29:42] Speaker 1: Well, you made the claim that there's zero eyewitness testimony, right.
[3:29:45] Speaker 2: What I'm saying is what we have is not eyewitness testimony.
[3:29:49] Speaker 2: Luke wasn't an eyewitness, so.
[3:29:52] Speaker 1: You don't think he actually interviewed eyewitnesses.
[3:29:54] Speaker 2: I didn't say that. I said Luke is not an eyewitness.
[3:29:58] Speaker 2: I don't know how many time I have to say that,
[3:30:00] Speaker 2: just like the writings of a Herodotus, Herodotus is not
[3:30:04] Speaker 2: an eyewitness to Aristeus rising from the dead. He's talking
[3:30:08] Speaker 2: to other people who claim to have witnessed these things.
[3:30:12] Speaker 2: So in the same manner, in the same manner that
[3:30:16] Speaker 2: Aristeus is collecting other people's testimonies. The Gospel, like we're
[3:30:20] Speaker 2: talking about. Luke is collecting other people's testimony. That means
[3:30:24] Speaker 2: Herotitis is not an eyewitness to Aristeus, and Luke is
[3:30:28] Speaker 2: not a witness to Jesus' resurrection. That's why they're comparable.
[3:30:31] Speaker 2: They're doing the same thing. So if you reject the
[3:30:34] Speaker 2: resurrection of Aristius, you should reject the resurrection of Jesus.
[3:30:39] Speaker 1: Okay, I'm gonna I'm gonna go on a limb and
[3:30:42] Speaker 1: say that your evidence for Aristius is quite different than
[3:30:46] Speaker 1: the multiple I have no idea, So.
[3:30:52] Speaker 2: You have no idea how it's different. You just know
[3:30:53] Speaker 2: it's different.
[3:30:54] Speaker 1: I have no idea. But just from what you're talking
[3:30:56] Speaker 1: about and what I'm hearing from you, it sounds like
[3:30:59] Speaker 1: I'm not going to take it word on it. I'm
[3:31:00] Speaker 1: gonna go up top research it because you don't even
[3:31:03] Speaker 1: know how ancient history is like done. But so you've
[3:31:09] Speaker 1: made the claim there's zero eyewitness testimony in the Gospels,
[3:31:13] Speaker 1: we have no clue who wrote.
[3:31:14] Speaker 2: No. I said the Gospels are not eyewitness testimony because
[3:31:17] Speaker 2: the gospel authors aren't eyewitnesses. I never said that the
[3:31:21] Speaker 2: gospel authors weren't I talking to people who were probably there.
[3:31:25] Speaker 2: I told you that whoever wrote John the two different
[3:31:28] Speaker 2: authors or multiple authors that are identified in Chapter twenty
[3:31:30] Speaker 2: one could be recording the testimony of John. John theoretically
[3:31:34] Speaker 2: would have been an eyewitness. I'm to say that there's
[3:31:37] Speaker 2: not a single eyewitness testimony contained in the Gospel.
[3:31:40] Speaker 1: Eyewitness testimony, it's.
[3:31:41] Speaker 2: Not an eyewitness testimony. What I'm saying is the Gospel
[3:31:44] Speaker 2: authors are not eyewitness testimony, their second hand information, the
[3:31:50] Speaker 2: same way that Aristeus is being told through second hand s.
[3:31:56] Speaker 1: Your your whole argument, hands on hinges on this one
[3:31:59] Speaker 1: thing being I'm gonna have to look.
[3:32:00] Speaker 2: For it actually doesn't hinge on evidence.
[3:32:04] Speaker 1: It seems like it is evidence has to be exactly
[3:32:07] Speaker 1: the same, is what it sounds like.
[3:32:09] Speaker 2: That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is we
[3:32:11] Speaker 2: have contained, we have in history multiple accounts of people
[3:32:15] Speaker 2: rising from the dead, and many of them read just
[3:32:19] Speaker 2: like the Gospels, and we don't believe that those people
[3:32:22] Speaker 2: rose from the dead. So I don't believe that Jesus
[3:32:24] Speaker 2: rose from the dead. And again, believing that he rose
[3:32:27] Speaker 2: from the dead doesn't fix the problem that the Gospel
[3:32:30] Speaker 2: authors are straight up lying to you about what the
[3:32:33] Speaker 2: Old Testament says.
[3:32:36] Speaker 1: So it sounds like that's the big one for you.
[3:32:38] Speaker 1: The fact that these early Jews, Christians, Greeks looked at
[3:32:42] Speaker 1: these Old Testament texts reinterpret him to fit what they
[3:32:45] Speaker 1: thought they saw Jesus rise from the dead.
[3:32:47] Speaker 2: I literally told you that the.
[3:32:49] Speaker 1: Only reason why this does not make any sense. No,
[3:32:53] Speaker 1: this is crazy that these earlier crazy how.
[3:32:56] Speaker 2: I've said it five times, they weren't listening a single time.
[3:33:00] Speaker 1: This is pretty weak.
[3:33:01] Speaker 2: So I'll say it again for the last time. Since
[3:33:03] Speaker 2: you weren't listening the first time, you weren't listening to
[3:33:05] Speaker 2: the second time. What I'm saying is that the Gospel
[3:33:09] Speaker 2: authors are comparable to other resurrection and miracle accounts. They're
[3:33:13] Speaker 2: not special. They're comparable to other accounts. Number Two, what
[3:33:17] Speaker 2: they say is simply untrue. Whenever they make claims about
[3:33:22] Speaker 2: the Hebrew Bible, they're making claims that are simply untrue.
[3:33:25] Speaker 2: So I've got a book that looks a lot like
[3:33:28] Speaker 2: other books from its time period, making claims very similar
[3:33:31] Speaker 2: to other claims from the time period, and making other
[3:33:34] Speaker 2: claims that are simply not true. Therefore, I'm not inclined
[3:33:39] Speaker 2: to believe that this book or these collections of books
[3:33:42] Speaker 2: are saying things that are true when it gives me
[3:33:44] Speaker 2: supernatural claims like people rising from the dead, it's very easy.
[3:33:48] Speaker 2: And it seems like you're just like unwilling to actually
[3:33:51] Speaker 2: listen to my argument, which is why, like right now
[3:33:53] Speaker 2: you're teacup not even listening. All right, listen, you've been
[3:33:58] Speaker 2: unbearable and I'm about to run out of time, so
[3:34:01] Speaker 2: I'm just going to send you back to the shadow
[3:34:03] Speaker 2: realm so you can cope on the not actual history
[3:34:07] Speaker 2: of the Gospels. With that, guys, I'm going to read
[3:34:09] Speaker 2: some super chats before I run out of time on
[3:34:12] Speaker 2: the stream. Thank you for everybody who sent super chats.
[3:34:14] Speaker 2: I'm going to get to all of them. Love you guys.
[3:34:16] Speaker 2: Mastro says, get rid of this guy losing the room. Yeah, yeah,
[3:34:19] Speaker 2: actually I should have got rid of him a long
[3:34:21] Speaker 2: time ago. I'm with you, actually, Oh you're referring to
[3:34:24] Speaker 2: the philbro Yeah, well, both of them are unbearable. Matt says,
[3:34:29] Speaker 2: goblefart is actually a syndonym for filbrowing. I don't disagree
[3:34:34] Speaker 2: with you. Actually, I think goblefart is a good word,
[3:34:36] Speaker 2: and it's a good word to describe what phil brows
[3:34:38] Speaker 2: are doing. One hundred percent and design, thank you so
[3:34:41] Speaker 2: much for the superchat says Religion quote scripture incessantly. Also religion,
[3:34:46] Speaker 2: words don't mean words every time. It's always words don't
[3:34:50] Speaker 2: mean words. That's that's all there is to it. And
[3:34:53] Speaker 2: also space words says maybe the issue is that they
[3:34:55] Speaker 2: forget the other omni properties when considering one property, can't
[3:34:59] Speaker 2: consider them at the same time. Well, I think that's
[3:35:01] Speaker 2: kind of what happens. I agree with a lot of
[3:35:04] Speaker 2: these paradoxes of the God concepts. Is they need to
[3:35:08] Speaker 2: invent a property of God to fix one problem, and
[3:35:12] Speaker 2: they're not realizing that they're creating a second problem when
[3:35:15] Speaker 2: they're putting the band aid on it. Right, So it's
[3:35:19] Speaker 2: just one of those things. And Fosco says, there is
[3:35:22] Speaker 2: no way a doctored theologian is unfamiliar with the omnigod arguments. Fosco, So,
[3:35:28] Speaker 2: I mean, I agree with you. It's weird to me
[3:35:30] Speaker 2: that like he's treating the omni paradox like, oh, it's
[3:35:34] Speaker 2: just been solved. It's not been solved, which is why
[3:35:39] Speaker 2: he didn't want to actually address it. And just as
[3:35:42] Speaker 2: Behold the Pretzel philosopher also words have meanings. We'll thank
[3:35:45] Speaker 2: you for a super chet and I agree if we
[3:35:47] Speaker 2: know anything about the Bible that the Christians who read
[3:35:52] Speaker 2: it don't believe that words have meanings, but we do here.
[3:35:55] Speaker 2: We believe that words have meanings. And Asian says confused,
[3:35:58] Speaker 2: being confused therefore God. That's kind of the God argument.
[3:36:02] Speaker 2: I should have brought it up when I was talking
[3:36:03] Speaker 2: to Derek. Derek was basically doing a God of the gaps.
[3:36:07] Speaker 2: Phil Bros hate it when I call it a God
[3:36:09] Speaker 2: of the gaps. They don't like that, but that's what
[3:36:11] Speaker 2: it is. And c A says he means all in
[3:36:17] Speaker 2: he means all AWL instead of all all. God is
[3:36:22] Speaker 2: just a tool. Listen. This is an.
[3:36:25] Speaker 3: Amazing play on words, and I actually agree with you.
[3:36:27] Speaker 2: I think that God is an all powerful entity or
[3:36:33] Speaker 2: an all entity AWL, and is in fact just a tool,
[3:36:37] Speaker 2: a tool for mental manipulation and placebo effect. So Larry,
[3:36:43] Speaker 2: thank you for gifting out five DZ memberships. Super appreciate that, friend.
[3:36:47] Speaker 2: We also have memberships open now on our Patreon. If
[3:36:51] Speaker 2: you go to my profile or the links in the description,
[3:36:53] Speaker 2: you'll find our Patreon and we've got merch finally available
[3:36:57] Speaker 2: on the YouTube stream says religion causes slow brain braindation,
[3:37:06] Speaker 2: slow braindation. For like a half a second, I thought
[3:37:10] Speaker 2: you were gonna say detonation. That's not what you're saying.
[3:37:13] Speaker 2: But yeah, religion does slow some things down. There's been
[3:37:15] Speaker 2: some scientific studies that suggest that people who believe in
[3:37:18] Speaker 2: religions are more likely to believe in other fanciful concepts
[3:37:21] Speaker 2: that have no basis in realogy, because you're primed to
[3:37:24] Speaker 2: think of things, and you're more primed to believe conspiracy
[3:37:27] Speaker 2: theories too. Fosco says, fake degree precept nonsense, Please move on.
[3:37:32] Speaker 2: Well it was, but listen, Derek was nice to me
[3:37:36] Speaker 2: and I wanted to be nice to him. And Bill says,
[3:37:39] Speaker 2: this dude needs to watch some doctor Alex Malpass. Actually
[3:37:42] Speaker 2: don't know Alex Malpass's material, but I'd love to get
[3:37:46] Speaker 2: a hold of it and take a look. And Aaron,
[3:37:48] Speaker 2: my friend, fellow dragon, welcome so much to the stream.
[3:37:51] Speaker 2: Thank you for gifting out twenty DZ memberships, big big
[3:37:54] Speaker 2: w Aaron, super appreciate that. Great to see you as always,
[3:37:58] Speaker 2: my friend. And Gluca says doctor empty assertions doesn't back
[3:38:02] Speaker 2: anything up. He needs to be saved praise Doug Well
[3:38:07] Speaker 2: that that seems to be the case. And that's what
[3:38:09] Speaker 2: happens with the Philbro discussions, is they really expect me
[3:38:13] Speaker 2: to accept their premisses without evidence, and I just don't
[3:38:16] Speaker 2: do it. Space Lord says, a triomny god could achieve
[3:38:19] Speaker 2: all without suffering. That was kind of my point, and
[3:38:21] Speaker 2: I think he got it eventually. If he's triomny, he
[3:38:24] Speaker 2: can do the shit without the suffering. He just chooses
[3:38:26] Speaker 2: not to which he means he's not triomne. And Design says,
[3:38:29] Speaker 2: the invisible being used to live in that cloud right there,
[3:38:33] Speaker 2: but we looked, so he moved to live next to
[3:38:35] Speaker 2: the big bang. You pretty much nailed the design. And
[3:38:37] Speaker 2: I say this a lot. In the early days, God
[3:38:40] Speaker 2: was God was right over there. They're in the forest,
[3:38:42] Speaker 2: they were on the mountains, and then they were in
[3:38:44] Speaker 2: the skies. And then we explored the mountains, in the
[3:38:46] Speaker 2: forest and the skies and there are no gods there.
[3:38:48] Speaker 2: As we had to keep pushing no, he's on the
[3:38:49] Speaker 2: other side of the firmament. Then we could see outer space.
[3:38:52] Speaker 2: We're like, shit, there's no firmament or God. So now
[3:38:54] Speaker 2: he's immaterial. He's completely unfalsifiable. And undetectable phrase says, think
[3:39:01] Speaker 2: you for the super shot. By the way, says one,
[3:39:03] Speaker 2: every action equals opposite reaction two, universe expanded since singularity
[3:39:08] Speaker 2: three contraction equals opposite reaction four contraction leads to new
[3:39:13] Speaker 2: singularity conclusion, no infinite regression needed? Why not? Well, I mean,
[3:39:20] Speaker 2: I agree with you that what we're experiencing is like
[3:39:24] Speaker 2: a form of Newtonian physics where we've got an endless
[3:39:28] Speaker 2: chain of causation that ends in infinite big bangs and
[3:39:32] Speaker 2: big crunches. But in order for this to be possible,
[3:39:37] Speaker 2: it seems like an infinite regressive time space of matter
[3:39:40] Speaker 2: is necessary.
[3:39:41] Speaker 3: So I mean, I'm willing to accept it.
[3:39:44] Speaker 2: Design says, you're trying to get me to say no,
[3:39:48] Speaker 2: We're trying not. We're trying to get you to think yeah.
[3:39:52] Speaker 2: We're not trying to get gotcha moments. We're trying to
[3:39:55] Speaker 2: get people to consider the ramifications of their words. The
[3:39:58] Speaker 2: gotcha moments are just an actual byproduct of making those realizations.
[3:40:03] Speaker 2: And Ba says, which one will be solved first? The
[3:40:05] Speaker 2: problem of evil or natural biogenesis? You mean a biogenesis.
[3:40:09] Speaker 2: I think the problem of a biogenesis is nearly solved.
[3:40:12] Speaker 2: At this point through laboratory experimentation. So I'm definitely gonna
[3:40:16] Speaker 2: go with that and helping Mega deconstruct this doctor spent
[3:40:20] Speaker 2: too much money for his lack of education. Listen, he's
[3:40:22] Speaker 2: probably really smart. I looked at the CV, he went
[3:40:25] Speaker 2: to real schools. It's just that he's looking through the
[3:40:29] Speaker 2: theistic glasses and he's interpreting everything through the theistic classes.
[3:40:33] Speaker 3: I used to do it too.
[3:40:35] Speaker 2: Larry says, thank you for the sixt sixty six McAllister
[3:40:39] Speaker 2: converted me to Dougism. Praise be the Rock, and thank
[3:40:44] Speaker 2: you so much Larry for letting us all know that
[3:40:46] Speaker 2: we have now pushed you further and further into the
[3:40:50] Speaker 2: one true religion. And Joey's thank you for the ten
[3:40:52] Speaker 2: hour supergestys. What type of music do you like most?
[3:40:55] Speaker 2: And if we took a ride somewhere, what song would
[3:40:58] Speaker 2: come on? Hail Doug. I love like Leonard, Skinnyard and
[3:41:02] Speaker 2: a lot of the you know, the seventies rock, big
[3:41:05] Speaker 2: fan of that stuff. I like the folk music too,
[3:41:09] Speaker 2: A big fan of like Tom Petty, Jim Crochey, A
[3:41:15] Speaker 2: lot of characters like that were pretty awesome. Dexter sending
[3:41:20] Speaker 2: out five d Z memberships on DZ debates, Big w
[3:41:24] Speaker 2: Dex totally appreciate it, my friend, and Shifty thank you
[3:41:28] Speaker 2: for the nine ninety nine says, is accidentally waving back
[3:41:31] Speaker 2: at someone who was waving at someone else written on
[3:41:34] Speaker 2: our heart like a moral law. That seems like a
[3:41:37] Speaker 2: common experience, in the same way they argue for morality
[3:41:40] Speaker 2: interesting accidentally waving back at someone who was I may
[3:41:46] Speaker 2: not fully understand the nature of the question, but I
[3:41:50] Speaker 2: don't believe it's written on our hearts. I think, you know,
[3:41:52] Speaker 2: for the most part, our brains are computational computers that
[3:41:56] Speaker 2: are just making decisions based on the on the inputs. Now,
[3:42:00] Speaker 2: whether or not we control those decisions sometimes I'm unsure.
[3:42:04] Speaker 2: I've had a discussion before, but whether or not we
[3:42:06] Speaker 2: actually have free will, I don't know.
[3:42:07] Speaker 3: If we do.
[3:42:08] Speaker 2: It's certainly something that's worth exploring. I just don't think
[3:42:11] Speaker 2: it matters. For the God debate, Christopher says, no one
[3:42:15] Speaker 2: plays chess on small table by a bookshelf.
[3:42:18] Speaker 3: Wait what, no one plays?
[3:42:19] Speaker 2: Oh yeah, yeah. His background So I've looked at his
[3:42:22] Speaker 2: videos before. I don't know if it's true if his
[3:42:26] Speaker 2: background is a green screen, but it kind of feels
[3:42:28] Speaker 2: like a green screen. If it's not a green screen,
[3:42:30] Speaker 2: I love his office. It's a great office. If it
[3:42:32] Speaker 2: is a green screen, at least he chose one that
[3:42:35] Speaker 2: looks realistic. But sad that he's using a green screen office. Kyle,
[3:42:40] Speaker 2: thank you for the super chat, though, he says, would
[3:42:41] Speaker 2: you say that it's a contradiction for Jesus to say,
[3:42:44] Speaker 2: blessed are the merciful, for they shall be shown mercy,
[3:42:47] Speaker 2: then to say God will only have mercy on those
[3:42:50] Speaker 2: whom he chooses to have mercy. So, actually, that is
[3:42:52] Speaker 2: kind of a contradiction. The Bible over and over again
[3:42:56] Speaker 2: tells you that you have to choose, you have to
[3:42:59] Speaker 2: do this thing, and then if you do this thing,
[3:43:01] Speaker 2: you get rewarded for it. But then in the same
[3:43:04] Speaker 2: breath as telling you that no, no, you can only
[3:43:06] Speaker 2: do this if God enables or causes you to do it. Well, shit,
[3:43:09] Speaker 2: what is it? Am I choosing to do this? Or
[3:43:11] Speaker 2: is God choosing for me? Bubble can't figure it out.
[3:43:14] Speaker 2: Visible thank you for the supertest, says Hey, justin tuning
[3:43:17] Speaker 2: in from Scotland. Well, big w from Scotland and says,
[3:43:20] Speaker 2: recently found your channel and have been binging ever since.
[3:43:23] Speaker 2: Keep up the good work and thank god I'm an atheist. Well,
[3:43:26] Speaker 2: big w for being here. Thank you so much for
[3:43:28] Speaker 2: supporting the channel and the super chat. I really appreciate
[3:43:31] Speaker 2: that and hopefully we're doing your proud. We probably related.
[3:43:34] Speaker 2: I got some Scottish blood, he g. Thank you so
[3:43:37] Speaker 2: much for the rainbows. Good to see a friend and
[3:43:41] Speaker 2: apostate Chess, thank you for the five dollar super chest says,
[3:43:44] Speaker 2: how about that contradiction between Deuteronomy twenty three to one
[3:43:46] Speaker 2: and Isaiah fifty six seven forty seven. Can I shout
[3:43:50] Speaker 2: my channel here?
[3:43:51] Speaker 3: It's my name.
[3:43:51] Speaker 2: If I may, you can apostate, Chess, you can shout
[3:43:54] Speaker 2: the name of your channel.
[3:43:55] Speaker 1: And you're right.
[3:43:56] Speaker 2: There is a contradiction in Deuteronomy twenty three because God
[3:43:58] Speaker 2: in deuteronam twenty three is not omnipresent.
[3:44:01] Speaker 3: In Deuteronomy twenty.
[3:44:02] Speaker 2: Three, God is quite literally in he walks among the people,
[3:44:07] Speaker 2: and he can't see anything indecent among them. But there's
[3:44:12] Speaker 2: another contradiction which will pull up that you're alluding to,
[3:44:15] Speaker 2: which is in verse one one second, where it says
[3:44:19] Speaker 2: no one whose testicles are crushed or who's peepee has
[3:44:22] Speaker 2: cut off shall come into the assembly of the Lord.
[3:44:25] Speaker 2: And what you're suggesting is that Isaiah fifty six is
[3:44:29] Speaker 2: a contradiction to this particular concept for through seven. So
[3:44:36] Speaker 2: thus say it's the Lord to the eunuchs, who keep
[3:44:38] Speaker 2: my Sabbath. There you go, eunis. That's actually a really
[3:44:42] Speaker 2: good contradiction that I never did put on the cheat
[3:44:45] Speaker 2: sheet that God is going to accept the eunuchs, but
[3:44:50] Speaker 2: he in Deuteronomy. Now you could say, well, in Deuteronomy
[3:44:53] Speaker 2: twenty three, it's only for the time period where they're
[3:44:56] Speaker 2: in the desert like doing war like. You could make
[3:44:59] Speaker 2: that argumentation saying, no, this is a this is a
[3:45:02] Speaker 2: temporary situation. He didn't mean at all points in time.
[3:45:06] Speaker 2: But then again he did say to follow the law forever.
[3:45:11] Speaker 2: So shit, I'm going to add that one to the
[3:45:13] Speaker 2: DZ contradiction list. I like that one. It's not often
[3:45:19] Speaker 2: that somebody brings up a contradiction that is not on
[3:45:22] Speaker 2: the list. Let's see, but.
[3:45:27] Speaker 3: Here we go, we got one. Thank you for that.
[3:45:29] Speaker 2: I appreciate that. Big w Ross says, the only part
[3:45:32] Speaker 2: of Jesus's body that didn't ascend to Heaven was his foreskin,
[3:45:36] Speaker 2: so that it must be what the sacrament was made
[3:45:39] Speaker 2: of Oh shit, yeah, I mean there's a theory that
[3:45:43] Speaker 2: it's it's like the Rings of Saturn, So there's that.
[3:45:46] Speaker 2: Marcus big w, thank you so much for the one
[3:45:49] Speaker 2: hundred dollars super chat. Thank you so so much for
[3:45:52] Speaker 2: the support. That's huge, Marcus, thank you, says random question.
[3:45:55] Speaker 2: I thought I heard you say on a stream once
[3:45:57] Speaker 2: that you play video games.
[3:45:59] Speaker 3: Sorry, I don't if that's true.
[3:46:01] Speaker 2: Have you played or heard of Blasphemous I would love
[3:46:04] Speaker 2: to hear about it now, I says it's a metro Idvania.
[3:46:11] Speaker 2: I don't know what that means. I apologize that it's
[3:46:13] Speaker 2: heavy with Spanish Catholic focal or. Now I kind of
[3:46:16] Speaker 2: want to play it if you like challenging games and
[3:46:20] Speaker 2: its SEQL are phenomenal. Well, I haven't played it, but
[3:46:24] Speaker 2: for the purpose of these discussions, I certainly would like
[3:46:27] Speaker 2: to at least hear about it.
[3:46:30] Speaker 3: Blast famous game.
[3:46:32] Speaker 2: I'm going to check it out and I'll let you
[3:46:35] Speaker 2: know what I find. Thank you for the recommendation, and
[3:46:37] Speaker 2: thank you so much for supporting the channel with the
[3:46:40] Speaker 2: ninety nine one hundred dollars super chepic w friends space
[3:46:43] Speaker 2: Lord says spirits. We have instruments far more sensitive and
[3:46:46] Speaker 2: accurate than our senses. They don't find spirits. If you can,
[3:46:51] Speaker 2: then you're detecting the impossible. Actually, you can collect a
[3:46:55] Speaker 2: prize if you think you can detect spirits. Go ahead
[3:46:57] Speaker 2: and collect your prize and prove that spirit realm exelst
[3:46:59] Speaker 2: exist us. People are waiting for it. Cryptic peptide, great name.
[3:47:03] Speaker 2: Thank you for the six sixty six, says I retract
[3:47:05] Speaker 2: my embarrassing statement regarding theory verse hypothesis. Oh no, I'm sorry.
[3:47:09] Speaker 2: I didn't mean to embarrass you. It says Holy profit
[3:47:11] Speaker 2: of Doug, oh bearded luminary. How can I repent self flagellation? Okay,
[3:47:16] Speaker 2: all you have to do to repent is get stoned
[3:47:20] Speaker 2: for Doug. That's it. You don't have to flagellate or
[3:47:23] Speaker 2: anything like that. But don't worry. Listen, it happens to
[3:47:26] Speaker 2: all of us, and lay, says Garantina. Giaga and Palkia
[3:47:31] Speaker 2: are god. Oh they're Pokemon gods. I didn't know that.
[3:47:34] Speaker 2: I didn't know Pokemon had gods. You might just referring
[3:47:37] Speaker 2: to normal Pokemon, but I don't. I don't know how
[3:47:39] Speaker 2: much of Pokemon lauras. I'm sorry, Milan, thank you for
[3:47:43] Speaker 2: the ten. Supertiti says, the more educated and apologist becomes,
[3:47:46] Speaker 2: the more they rely on philosophical rather than biblical arguments.
[3:47:50] Speaker 2: So this is actually my point. I agree with you.
[3:47:53] Speaker 2: The ones that go really deep into philosophical education, especially
[3:47:58] Speaker 2: in religion, they have I haven't advanced the arguments at all.
[3:48:02] Speaker 3: They haven't.
[3:48:03] Speaker 2: All they've done is they've overcomplicated them and added more
[3:48:05] Speaker 2: verbiage that nobody understands. They haven't advanced the argument one bit,
[3:48:10] Speaker 2: and Get says physicalism or materialism has nothing to do
[3:48:13] Speaker 2: with atheism. Given emergence, strong or weak things like concepts
[3:48:18] Speaker 2: or love can exist even if.
[3:48:19] Speaker 3: You are a physicalist. Please stop watching Jim Bob.
[3:48:22] Speaker 2: Actually I don't watch Jimbob because I think philosophy is boring.
[3:48:25] Speaker 2: But this does sound like the type of thing Jim
[3:48:27] Speaker 2: Bob would say. And they have to because inherent in
[3:48:31] Speaker 2: the transcendental argument is that these transcendental things must exist.
[3:48:36] Speaker 2: And Marcus coming in again says also, it is my
[3:48:38] Speaker 2: pleasure to make the magic Gathering card my profile picture.
[3:48:42] Speaker 2: I laughed so hard when I saw it that teared
[3:48:46] Speaker 2: up that I teared up. Well, thank you so much.
[3:48:48] Speaker 2: I was hoping somebody would appreciate my work. You can
[3:48:51] Speaker 2: find that in the shop on my YouTube. I've got
[3:48:53] Speaker 2: a magic the Gathering card sticker that you can put
[3:48:55] Speaker 2: all over the place. And space Lord, says munt Chusen
[3:48:59] Speaker 2: tlema In, is capable for all epistemic systems. Guy is
[3:49:05] Speaker 2: way too certain. I don't know what any of those
[3:49:08] Speaker 2: words mean, but I trust me, space Lord. I believe
[3:49:11] Speaker 2: that you do. And when these Philbro types come up here,
[3:49:14] Speaker 2: sometimes be nice to be able to cook them with
[3:49:16] Speaker 2: this nonsense words solid, but I just don't have the
[3:49:18] Speaker 2: attention span for it. Johnson Tittle's great name. Thank you
[3:49:22] Speaker 2: for the supertest, says still watching Doctor Derek. It's fascinating
[3:49:25] Speaker 2: that PhD's have the same week arguments as every other Christian.
[3:49:28] Speaker 2: So I've been saying this for a long time. If
[3:49:31] Speaker 2: you have a PhD, you don't have any better arguments.
[3:49:34] Speaker 2: Your arguments are not any better. Alls you have is
[3:49:36] Speaker 2: fancier words. That's it, and helping Mega says Philbro. Equals
[3:49:41] Speaker 2: can't defend my Holy Book and faith. That's basically it. Yeah,
[3:49:43] Speaker 2: I want to talk about the God of philosophy, not
[3:49:45] Speaker 2: the god of the book. And Morpheus good to see him,
[3:49:47] Speaker 2: my friend, He says, why do we need logic rational
[3:49:50] Speaker 2: to prove God? Well, I think that's the only way
[3:49:52] Speaker 2: we can prove God, right. I think you're asking for
[3:49:55] Speaker 2: the guests, though. Can can you use rationality and logic
[3:49:59] Speaker 2: too prove God? I don't think so, because I don't
[3:50:02] Speaker 2: think they exist transcendentally. And Ice Man, thank you for
[3:50:05] Speaker 2: sending out a DZ membership, and Marcus, thank you for
[3:50:07] Speaker 2: sending out five DZ memberships. Super appreciate that. And also Lords,
[3:50:12] Speaker 2: thank you for sending out a membership. Super appreciate that. Friends,
[3:50:15] Speaker 2: the memberships are what keep this channel alive. It's the
[3:50:18] Speaker 2: backbone of the channel. And Nay Now says, DZ is
[3:50:23] Speaker 2: Christianity's end. Boss, thanks for sharing the results of your
[3:50:26] Speaker 2: years of study. Well, thank you so much for the
[3:50:27] Speaker 2: nineteen ninety nine. And I don't know if I'm the
[3:50:29] Speaker 2: final boss. I feel like there's a lot of great
[3:50:31] Speaker 2: people in this space. But I'm determined to take what
[3:50:35] Speaker 2: I learned in school and to put it in the
[3:50:37] Speaker 2: practice to try to find a way to make the
[3:50:41] Speaker 2: world a better place. That that's all there is to it.
[3:50:44] Speaker 2: I'm gonna grab as many super chats as possible I'm
[3:50:47] Speaker 2: gonna grab some of the big ones because I'm very
[3:50:50] Speaker 2: shortly gonna be running out of time because that last
[3:50:51] Speaker 2: conversation went short. I apologize if I miss a couple
[3:50:55] Speaker 2: super chats my summer schedules. It's really difficult to fit
[3:50:58] Speaker 2: everything in. I have a huge announcement coming in like
[3:51:03] Speaker 2: two weeks though. That is going to fix that, by
[3:51:06] Speaker 2: the way, I'll have lots of time, but for now, unfortunately,
[3:51:11] Speaker 2: I have a hard cut off at five o'clock. That's
[3:51:13] Speaker 2: what my baby sister maybe if my babysitter has to leave,
[3:51:17] Speaker 2: She's here till five, and then my son and I
[3:51:19] Speaker 2: are going to go do father some stuff. John the Factist,
[3:51:23] Speaker 2: thank you so much for the super chest, says, if
[3:51:24] Speaker 2: God is all powerful, then why does he insist on
[3:51:26] Speaker 2: playing cosmic hide and seek instead of revealing himself and
[3:51:29] Speaker 2: putting an end to countless wars in his name?
[3:51:32] Speaker 3: It just doesn't make logical sense.
[3:51:33] Speaker 2: I'm with you, Like, so if the God, like, if
[3:51:38] Speaker 2: he does want things to be this way, if it's
[3:51:40] Speaker 2: not an accident, then he seems to be evil, Like,
[3:51:43] Speaker 2: there's no reason why you would invent everything the way
[3:51:45] Speaker 2: that it is now without it being evil. And I
[3:51:49] Speaker 2: am the cheese. Thank you so much for the forty
[3:51:51] Speaker 2: nine ninety nine dollars super chat. Big W's some W's
[3:51:54] Speaker 2: for Cheese says, when people step outside of ancient Near East,
[3:51:57] Speaker 2: you will find thousands of people in India, Africa, Far East, etc.
[3:52:01] Speaker 2: Making claims of supernatural today. That isn't the Christian God,
[3:52:06] Speaker 2: the guy who founded ful and Dapha is alive now
[3:52:09] Speaker 2: and can fly and heal. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So when
[3:52:12] Speaker 2: I was in school, I learned about a lot of
[3:52:14] Speaker 2: Eastern mysticism and people that are alive today that are
[3:52:18] Speaker 2: doing faith, healings and different things like that. These are
[3:52:21] Speaker 2: not claims that are anywhere unique to Christianity whatsoever. Kyle,
[3:52:26] Speaker 2: thank you so much again for the supertest says, do
[3:52:27] Speaker 2: supertests disappear if not look that for a period of
[3:52:30] Speaker 2: time they used to. I have a new system now
[3:52:33] Speaker 2: that does save them, so I can scroll back as
[3:52:36] Speaker 2: long as I'm keeping track of them and grab them.
[3:52:38] Speaker 2: Good question, though, and Infinity says, Christians love bringing up
[3:52:43] Speaker 2: bar airmen about the historicity of Jesus until you bring
[3:52:45] Speaker 2: up the fact that he thinks most characters into Bible
[3:52:47] Speaker 2: are fictional, like Moses. Then he's a big meaning. So
[3:52:50] Speaker 2: that's actually a really good point. Is they're willing to
[3:52:52] Speaker 2: accept some historical claims but not others. If Moses didn't exist,
[3:52:56] Speaker 2: that means Jesus was wrong about Moses. And if Jesus
[3:52:59] Speaker 2: was wrong about Moses, that means Jesus wasn't God. Simple deduction, shifty,
[3:53:04] Speaker 2: thank you. Also for another super chest says, the idea
[3:53:07] Speaker 2: was that theists claim common experiences as supernatural, like being
[3:53:12] Speaker 2: repulsed bi atrocities, but we also get embarrassed in the
[3:53:16] Speaker 2: same ways, but that's not claimed to supernatural. So that's
[3:53:19] Speaker 2: actually really good point. And animals too, Animals are subject
[3:53:23] Speaker 2: to it. Right, There are animals that experience embarrassment have
[3:53:25] Speaker 2: senses of morality, yet by the same token, we don't
[3:53:30] Speaker 2: attribute them spirits or anything like that. And Brito says
[3:53:33] Speaker 2: some philosophers argue the idea of a perfect, all knowing,
[3:53:36] Speaker 2: all powerful being is logically self contradictory, so the whole
[3:53:39] Speaker 2: idea might not be just unprovable but meaningless. So deeper
[3:53:43] Speaker 2: to you're one hundred percent right. And I actually know
[3:53:45] Speaker 2: a couple Christians on TikTok that I've talked to that
[3:53:48] Speaker 2: don't believe in the omni good. You can believe in
[3:53:50] Speaker 2: the Bible God without believing in an Omnigod.
[3:53:52] Speaker 3: I don't know if people know.
[3:53:53] Speaker 2: That, Like the Omnigod is a god of philosophy, it's
[3:53:56] Speaker 2: not a god of the Bible. And Canvas is Coller
[3:53:59] Speaker 2: loading up a words don't mean words. Excuse listen, that's
[3:54:02] Speaker 2: all they have. It's always words don't mean words. That
[3:54:05] Speaker 2: that's just the best. That's all they can do. And
[3:54:08] Speaker 2: Bootolino says, so an infinite regress seems counterintuitive to doctor McAllister.
[3:54:13] Speaker 2: But something existing and thinking without time doesn't praise Doug
[3:54:17] Speaker 2: and his amazing hayes. Yes, again, we're going back to
[3:54:22] Speaker 2: the theory of incredulity. Right If if your argument for
[3:54:25] Speaker 2: why it's not true is incredulousness, this is not a
[3:54:28] Speaker 2: good argument. Zach, thank you again for the ninety nine
[3:54:31] Speaker 2: says this man's response to fact. The actual text of
[3:54:35] Speaker 2: the book. Well, nah, when you start reading the book,
[3:54:39] Speaker 2: you get a lot of not ods really fast, really fast.
[3:54:42] Speaker 2: And Zach come in again, says, just to be clear,
[3:54:44] Speaker 2: I have no idea what I'm I'm talking about. So yeah,
[3:54:48] Speaker 2: quoting doctor Derek, Yeah, yeah, It's funny that they want
[3:54:52] Speaker 2: to defend the religion of the book, but they're willing
[3:54:54] Speaker 2: to admit that they have no idea what the book
[3:54:55] Speaker 2: actually means, or like that last guy we talked to you,
[3:54:58] Speaker 2: they have no idea what's in the Old Testament. It's
[3:55:00] Speaker 2: crazy that you would be a Christian and not know
[3:55:01] Speaker 2: what's in the Old Testament. Nightman says, So, did the
[3:55:04] Speaker 2: good doctor just not listen in seminary or what? I
[3:55:07] Speaker 2: don't know if he has a true seminary degree. I
[3:55:11] Speaker 2: think he was using those words pretty loose. For example,
[3:55:14] Speaker 2: I knew people that went to seminary that got counseling degrees.
[3:55:17] Speaker 2: They didn't do biblical studies, right. I went to seminary,
[3:55:20] Speaker 2: and I did biblical studies, specifically concentrating on the Old
[3:55:24] Speaker 2: Testament and Biblical languages, and so I did a lot
[3:55:29] Speaker 2: of study at seminary that the counselors didn't do. That's
[3:55:32] Speaker 2: the nature of going to school. And Zach says, who
[3:55:36] Speaker 2: ordered intellectually dishonest Ron Swanson? I think that's the accurate description. Actually,
[3:55:42] Speaker 2: a dishonest Ron Swanson without the great mustache. Unfortunately, you
[3:55:47] Speaker 2: need the mustache. And Zach coming in again. Holy shit, Zach,
[3:55:50] Speaker 2: you're making it rain. Thank you so much, says can
[3:55:53] Speaker 2: an all loving being punish someone for doing wrong when
[3:55:56] Speaker 2: they didn't have knowledge of what wrong was and he
[3:55:58] Speaker 2: knew that they would do it before they did. They're
[3:56:00] Speaker 2: referring to Adam and Eve because they did the thing
[3:56:02] Speaker 2: God knew they were going to do. He tempted them
[3:56:04] Speaker 2: to do it, and he knew ahead of time that
[3:56:06] Speaker 2: they didn't have the moral thinking capacity to know that
[3:56:09] Speaker 2: they're doing wrong. And the fact that they would get
[3:56:11] Speaker 2: blamed for this is crazy. I've made this point so
[3:56:15] Speaker 2: many times, Zach. The fact that ab and Eve got punished,
[3:56:18] Speaker 2: and then all of their ancestors got punished for a
[3:56:21] Speaker 2: crime that they committed before they knew that it was
[3:56:23] Speaker 2: even bad to do it is insanity. And Carlos, my friend,
[3:56:27] Speaker 2: great to see you today. Thank you so so much
[3:56:30] Speaker 2: for gifting out fifty d Z memberships. That's huge, friends.
[3:56:34] Speaker 2: My goal for the summer I have a summertime goal friends.
[3:56:37] Speaker 2: I want to get to two thousand DZ memberships. I
[3:56:40] Speaker 2: know they can do it. You guys are awesome. This
[3:56:43] Speaker 2: is literally the best crowd on TikTok and YouTube and
[3:56:47] Speaker 2: amazing support, and because you guys support me so well,
[3:56:51] Speaker 2: I've got great news coming up for you. I've got
[3:56:53] Speaker 2: amazing news I just can't tell you today. And Zach says,
[3:56:56] Speaker 2: because natural things are the only things demonstrated to exist,
[3:57:00] Speaker 2: you've done so, Zach, That's my point. When I'm talking
[3:57:03] Speaker 2: to the philosophy guy, I'm saying, these these things that
[3:57:07] Speaker 2: you might consider to be special, pleading or illogical, they're
[3:57:11] Speaker 2: illogical for your worldview too. The difference is the stuff
[3:57:14] Speaker 2: in my worldview I know exists. I know that we exist,
[3:57:19] Speaker 2: I know that all this stuff exists. So I'm willing
[3:57:22] Speaker 2: to accept some things that are hard to accept, versus
[3:57:26] Speaker 2: to attribute to a thing that I don't know exists.
[3:57:29] Speaker 3: And Narcissa, thank you so much.
[3:57:31] Speaker 2: For the nineteen ninety nine super fail epic failed. Thank
[3:57:35] Speaker 2: you so so so much, friend. And Bryce big w
[3:57:38] Speaker 2: Friend good to see us says. What the good Doctor
[3:57:41] Speaker 2: doesn't seem to get is that I don't know why
[3:57:44] Speaker 2: God does X is precisely the reason for not adding
[3:57:47] Speaker 2: a god into your presupposition. It raises more unanswerable questions.
[3:57:50] Speaker 2: Ockham raisor so this is what I was saying, right,
[3:57:53] Speaker 2: If your worldview is full of contradicting details or details
[3:57:57] Speaker 2: that are completely unexpected and unexplained within that worldview, then
[3:58:02] Speaker 2: I don't know if it's a great worldview to hold
[3:58:04] Speaker 2: on to and rock hard. My friend, good to see you.
[3:58:07] Speaker 2: Thank you so much for the super chat, says, thank
[3:58:09] Speaker 2: you for doing dug insurance good work justin we love
[3:58:12] Speaker 2: you actually making Fridays great again. Well, big w I
[3:58:16] Speaker 2: really appreciate that. Next time I'm out in your neck
[3:58:19] Speaker 2: of the woods, we're going to get together for some
[3:58:20] Speaker 2: more barbecue. Friend and TMJ my great great friend. Good
[3:58:24] Speaker 2: to see it, he says. When considering human phenotype geography
[3:58:29] Speaker 2: and that the Egyptians ruled Canaan Israel for five hundred years,
[3:58:33] Speaker 2: were the Israelite people black and brown people prior to
[3:58:38] Speaker 2: the rule of the Greece in Roman It's okay, So
[3:58:40] Speaker 2: the fact of the matter is the ancient Israelites were
[3:58:42] Speaker 2: most likely olive skinned. We've got pretty good testimony for this.
[3:58:46] Speaker 2: People that were considered really really dark were people that
[3:58:49] Speaker 2: were doing hard labor in the sun. Right, The people
[3:58:53] Speaker 2: who are out in the sun all the time were
[3:58:54] Speaker 2: just naturally darker than the average person, Which tells me
[3:58:59] Speaker 2: that most like they were olive skinned and not necessarily
[3:59:02] Speaker 2: super dark skinned, because they themselves were giving you different
[3:59:06] Speaker 2: ratings on the darkness of the skin. But these are
[3:59:09] Speaker 2: tenuous conclusions. In the ancient neariestern text, you don't have
[3:59:14] Speaker 2: a lot of people talking about the color of people's skinned.
[3:59:17] Speaker 2: In the Samerian and Babylonian literature, there's a lot of
[3:59:20] Speaker 2: talk about the color of their hair. The Samerian and
[3:59:23] Speaker 2: the Babylonian people quite often are referred to as the
[3:59:25] Speaker 2: black headed people. So there's that. Sam Wilson, thank you
[3:59:29] Speaker 2: so much for the ninety nine dollars super chat big,
[3:59:33] Speaker 2: big w huge, Sam. I super appreciate that. Our friends, says,
[3:59:36] Speaker 2: just want to say thank you justin well, Sam, thank you.
[3:59:39] Speaker 2: I super appreciate you supporting the stream and being here
[3:59:42] Speaker 2: in super chatting, and thank you so much again. Your
[3:59:45] Speaker 2: guys' support is what makes these streams possible. And Metra says,
[3:59:49] Speaker 2: if Anana is I don't think she was. If Nana
[3:59:52] Speaker 2: is nephelima God's fallen Nie, why do we still follow her?
[3:59:56] Speaker 2: Rituals pride in June linked to Juno gender and version
[4:00:00] Speaker 2: and war rioting. Why deny God but keep her legacy?
[4:00:04] Speaker 2: Has nothing to do with her legacy. Literally, none of
[4:00:06] Speaker 2: this that you just mentioned is something that Anana was about.
[4:00:12] Speaker 2: Hanana didn't didn't say squat about pride. She didn't say
[4:00:17] Speaker 2: squat about the month of June. Her month was in
[4:00:20] Speaker 2: the fall. She was a harvest deity. Her her celebration
[4:00:23] Speaker 2: was during the harvest. She wasn't enephelem, she wasn't born
[4:00:27] Speaker 2: of an union between gods and men. At one point
[4:00:32] Speaker 2: she tried to have a union with ank you do,
[4:00:36] Speaker 2: but Anka Do turned her down and didn't like that.
[4:00:39] Speaker 2: And Singer says, how can physical processes get us to
[4:00:43] Speaker 2: truth conclusions about reality? Better?
[4:00:46] Speaker 3: Question? Why can't they?
[4:00:47] Speaker 2: And how does postulating non physical things that we can't
[4:00:50] Speaker 2: observe test or get us there? I don't think that
[4:00:53] Speaker 2: it can, right. I think the last caller we had,
[4:00:56] Speaker 2: I think was doing the argument better, which is, if
[4:01:00] Speaker 2: you can demonstrate that immaterial things exist, then we can say, well,
[4:01:04] Speaker 2: other immaterial things could exist, right even though we don't
[4:01:07] Speaker 2: have proof that they exist, We're just laying the groundwork
[4:01:10] Speaker 2: for the possibility of their existence. Rock Hard fordug says
[4:01:14] Speaker 2: just finished the book Jesus and a lecture series by
[4:01:17] Speaker 2: bar Airman that goes into the gospel sources regarding q
[4:01:21] Speaker 2: M and L. Also a big w for bringing up
[4:01:23] Speaker 2: Doug with this collar. He wouldn't bite. So the crazy
[4:01:27] Speaker 2: thing with the last caller, and I knew it when
[4:01:28] Speaker 2: he came in. He was so bent on getting his
[4:01:31] Speaker 2: script out. He did not want to deviate. He did
[4:01:34] Speaker 2: not want to deviate. I let him talk, but I
[4:01:38] Speaker 2: was curious where it was going to go. But either way, yeah,
[4:01:42] Speaker 2: he was bent on following the script. Texas says first Stream.
[4:01:45] Speaker 2: I've been able to catch on a new schedule, but
[4:01:48] Speaker 2: I could smell the smoke all the way in Texas.
[4:01:50] Speaker 2: Hope the summer is going great so far. But well,
[4:01:52] Speaker 2: thank you so much Texas. I apprecaid that and it
[4:01:54] Speaker 2: is going great. And thank you my friend also for
[4:01:57] Speaker 2: sending out five DZ memberships. Super appreciate it. And Doc says,
[4:02:01] Speaker 2: my guy thinks contradictions prove eyewitnesses by that logic for
[4:02:05] Speaker 2: drunk dudes arguing about UFOs is hard evidence for aliens,
[4:02:09] Speaker 2: it's not history, it's post mortem fan fiction with sandals.
[4:02:12] Speaker 2: This is actually a good point that gets brought up
[4:02:14] Speaker 2: a lot that I always forget to bring up is
[4:02:16] Speaker 2: the many eyewitnesses to Bigfoot, the many eyewitnesses to alien encounters. Listen,
[4:02:21] Speaker 2: just because you have a witness doesn't mean the thing
[4:02:23] Speaker 2: that they're claiming happened happened. That's preposterous and good Freeman,
[4:02:28] Speaker 2: thank you for the ten that hour. Super Chest says,
[4:02:30] Speaker 2: just wanted to point out that Jonathan, the Christian it
[4:02:34] Speaker 2: does not know what atheism is. It does not fail
[4:02:38] Speaker 2: to answer questions. It is a stance that does not
[4:02:40] Speaker 2: accept a claim. Do better, Jonathan, Yeah, actually I agree
[4:02:43] Speaker 2: with you. There's some problems. Listen, guys, I'm four minutes
[4:02:46] Speaker 2: past time. I apologize. I read as many supertestes as
[4:02:49] Speaker 2: I could. If I missed one or two, I'm so sorry.
[4:02:52] Speaker 2: I'll never let it happen again. That last conversation went late.
[4:02:56] Speaker 2: You guys know I love and appreciate everybody who's sports
[4:02:59] Speaker 2: to chant. Next time, I'll have a hard cut off
[4:03:03] Speaker 2: so we don't get super chats missed. But I've got
[4:03:06] Speaker 2: to go. I've got to.
[4:03:07] Speaker 3: Take care of my son.
[4:03:08] Speaker 2: We're gonna go. I have some fun time together. I'll
[4:03:10] Speaker 2: be live again in a week. On the next Friday,
[4:03:13] Speaker 2: and next Friday when I see you, I've got a
[4:03:15] Speaker 2: huge announcement. It's a mega announcement. It's a great announcement.
[4:03:19] Speaker 2: You're gonna love it. It's the best announcement. So thank
[4:03:22] Speaker 2: you so much for being here. I'll see you again soon.
[4:03:25] Speaker 2: And h is someone live that we can go raid? Anyone?
[4:03:27] Speaker 2: Is anyone live? Is Ian live right now? Let me
[4:03:30] Speaker 2: see if Ian's live. Ian's probably live right now. Let's
[4:03:38] Speaker 2: see who is live? Who's live? See it says I'm live. Obviously,
[4:03:45] Speaker 2: I don't see any atheists live right now other than myself.
[4:03:54] Speaker 2: Let's see. Let's see. Oh, one of thinkers friends is live.
[4:03:59] Speaker 3: That you're saying.
[4:04:01] Speaker 2: It must be on TikTok. Let me grab the TikTok
[4:04:04] Speaker 2: stream for I have to see who's live on TikTok.
[4:04:10] Speaker 2: All right, here's her live button. Let's see who's all
[4:04:14] Speaker 2: live right now? Oh, we actually a bunch of people
[4:04:17] Speaker 2: are live on TikTok right now. Shoot, so we can
[4:04:21] Speaker 2: go raid quite quite a few people.
[4:04:24] Speaker 3: So let's do this.
[4:04:25] Speaker 2: Let's raid someone we haven't rated before and see what
[4:04:30] Speaker 2: we can do. I don't know if we've sent a
[4:04:33] Speaker 2: raid to Christina before. I love Christina's channel. Let me
[4:04:37] Speaker 2: put it on the screen. This is Christina Carol her tag,
[4:04:42] Speaker 2: is she worth it? For real?
[4:04:44] Speaker 3: For real?
[4:04:45] Speaker 2: Christina Carroll is the stream, and let's go. Let's go
[4:04:50] Speaker 2: raid Christina's line. Let's go give her a Doug and
[4:04:52] Speaker 2: justin Raid tell him that Doug is the rock solid
[4:04:55] Speaker 2: truth and that we love and appreciate her and what
[4:04:57] Speaker 2: she's doing. And I'll meet you over there in just
[4:04:59] Speaker 2: a few in our friends, just go meet over in
[4:05:02] Speaker 2: Christina's

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.