All right. I apologize because as we were beginning to end the discussion, the internet cut out and I did not get to hear our druid guests arguments and position. He thinks that I was silent, had nothing to say, but it was my connection. So I wanted to reset the conversation. And we're going to start a whole new
chat for Islam, Catholicism, evangelicalism, liberalism, atheism. We're going to maybe move away from all the dismensationless stuff from earlier and go ahead and state what you were saying earlier. Can you hear me? Now? Can you you hear me? Good?
You need to bring up a Catholic, a Muslim, and a evangelical and a liberal and an atheist.
For a real debate. Do you want to make your druid arguments or not? So what's your question? I didn't hear the stuff you said when the X space cut out? So what do is your argument for druidism?
This has no basis, So there's no argument on anything.
What do you want me to say?
Like?
What what are you trolling? You're the one that said that you wanted to talk about druid stuff.
No, I wanted to talk to other peoples and their religion.
Now you're here to debate me or you're just wasting everyone's time, okay, So ask me a question. Then why should we believe Druidism? I'm not asking you to believe in anything. Yeah, are you here to debate or not? Why did you waste everybody's time? I made this space to come back and have this chat with you, and you're just wasting everybody's time. So what's the jew it? From what you think? What is the jod the indigenous religion of the British Isles British Isles, no, okay, Irish
Scottish Isles, hebrides yeah more so okay? So and is that true or what? Yeah?
They had their gods like the two Atadi Denan and then there's the Norse, right, the pantheon of the Norse.
So oh dan freya? Oh that? And you ascribe to this as true or not? I do because it's my creator? Okay. How do you know that that's your creator? Your creator's plural or creator creators, So it's plural. And how do you know that this religion is true?
Because there are four winds? Right, there are four different places surrounding our So you're.
An insane person. You're wasting everyone's time. Thank you, good job. So the religion is true because there's four winds. You can't make this up. I've made this space because I wanted to have a discussion with a quote druid and he's literally just wasted everyone's time. Lamia. By the way, he sounded drunk.
So Lamia, Hey, this is his wife. Actually have a question. Okay, So Matthew eleven one through eleven, does this openly admit? John the Baptist had doubt and yeah, just questions.
You read the specific passage. I'm in the bathtub, so I don't have it in front of me.
Oh God, on one second, one second?
Are you talking about the passes where it says that whether he is a messiah or not, he's not sure?
Uh?
Yeah. So after Jesus had finished instructing his twelve disciples, he went on from there to teach and preach in the towns of Galilee. When John, who wasn't in prison, heard about the deeds of the Messigh, he sent his disciples to ask him, are you the one who is to come or should we expect someone else? Jesus replied, go back and report to John what you hear and see. The blind receives sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed. The deaf here the dead arrays, and
the good news is proclaimed to the poor. Blesses anyone who does not stumble on account of me. As John's disciples were leaving, Jesus began to speak to the crowd about John. What did you go out into the wilderness to see a reed swayed by the wind? If not, what did you go out to see a man dressed in fine clothes? No, those who wear fine clothes are king's palaces. In king's palaces, then what did you go
out to see a prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet, this is the one about whom it is written, I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your wife before you.
Right, So, most of the Apostles, many of the Jews, and then people who first heard Christ's message when he began to preach, they were not sure about the totality of what his mission was. So many of them did not know or they didn't understand, that he was going to die and to resurrect if you read Luke twenty four, Jesus then later explains all of these things to them
and says and he brings them to their remembrance. So there is not that he doubted, It's just that they weren't sure what the whole plan was.
So for mind, like when I read it, I believe that it would be doubt, But like, what do you think that's meaning? Like in that message?
Literally what I just said? Did you not hear what I said? Luke twenty four and other passages explained the context as to progressive revelation. So, for example, in Matthew sixteen, when Jesus confesses that Peter is the son of God, Jesus rewards him and says, blessed are you Simon Barjona because you confess this right. The other disciples had not yet figured out his divine status, although they might have
suspected it. So that doesn't equate to doubt. It equates to the unsurety as to what exactly the Messiah was going to do do Because even though many Jews believed in a Messiah, they were not sure about the death browne resurrection. That's why after Jesus dies, the apostles are
afraid and scared, and they don't understand it. Then after the Resurrection in Luke twenty four, Jesus has a conversation with the disciples and he says, all of these things, right, I will explain to you from the prophets from the Old Testament, and that he brought it all to their remembrance and opened their eyes to understand the scriptures, it says in Luke twenty four. So prior to that, although they had a faith in him, they were unsure as to the full mission. That makes sense.
So it's your like saying doubt wouldn't be like the answer at all? What was that I didn't catch that doubt wouldn't be an answer at all, like an option in that interpretation.
Well, I think doubt constitutes a specific disbelief. And if John's not sure, that's not necessarily the same thing as disbelieving the Messiah, because he had baptized him, but he wasn't sure about the full mission of the Messiah as to what his job was.
So is it not okay to have disbelief?
I mean, are you not? I'm not trying to be rude, but are you guys drunk over there? You don't understand what I'm saying.
Probably not, is that okay?
I'm just questioning, Well, I mean, are you questioning to troll me?
Or is this are you No, I'm just questioning to understand where you're coming from. And if you understand where I'm coming from.
So doubt would be disbelieved, not trusting God not the same thing as being unclear about all the theology of the scripture and redemtive history.
Well, I'm saying, like, even if you were clear, can you have a moment of disbelief?
Yeah?
Is that okay?
Yes? People do have Yeah, sure, So.
Do you think that was in that case? Or you can't really tell?
Again, I don't think that lack of clarity about the Massiah's mission equates to the sin of not believing God. Why because of all the things that I've been telling you for the last five minutes.
Well, but like there, do you think there's any way it can equate based off of showing that you know, we're not We're imperfect and we could have weakness with disbelief if we, you know, have faith in that and we could some have moments of disbelief.
I think there's many other passages that do talk about people struggling with faith and we're all sinners, as John says. So yes, but I don't think think that this is a specific period in redentive history where before the death rone resurrection again, not everything was clear even to the disciples, and Luke twenty four makes that very clear. So Peter, can I give you an example of the actual doubt? Peter, So, when Peter denies Christ, he doubts. I don't think this example,
John the Baptist constitutes doubt. I just think he doesn't know exactly what the mission is.
Well in those moments of doubts, like Jesus brought up those messages from you know, the prophets and everything, like you said, So it just brings you know, his voice to be heard in those moments rather than just focusing on John in that moment.
I don't know what that means. I'm sorry, this is like Gang Wien, I'm you. So I restarted an entire space for the druid and his wife and they weren't coherent, so it was a complete waste of time. But we're happy. I'm happy to keep going. Gang Green, what's.
Up, Hey, I listened to your debate with Ryan Dawson a while back. Is this the wrong time to catch up on that or ask the questions?
No?
I remember, yeah, yeah, I was watching it with some friends and your point some of the like the people in my group were just saying, like, your.
Point of view is kind of like vague, Like could you, like, since you said that you remember it vaguely, could you describe your point of view?
Like what was whose point of view is vague? He was arguing the truth is relative from what I recall. How is arguing for objective truth vague?
But this had to do something with God, right, like the existence of God?
Yeah, and Ryan Dawson was an atheist skeptical relativist, which means that truth is relative, right.
But can you summarize it for a normy like you're like, like, because I still don't understand like what you meant, right, it's like a very like the way that you cornered him, like and I and I understand what you're doing right, like, but to enorm me, it's very hard to understand what that means.
Like, I mean, so claims are either relative or they're objectively true. There's no middle ground there, So either something is the case factually, objectively apart from my own personal subjective feelings of my personal ideas about it. You know, two plus two equals four. It doesn't matter how I feel about that, or whether I want it to be five, or whether the majority of society decides that two plus
two is four. It objectively is the case, regardless of human perception or construable relative What does.
The disconnect with you and Ryan Dawson, Like, whatever you're saying right now is like like common sense, like base.
Ryan Dawson believes that truth is relative and he's a skeptical relativist. That was the debate, and I argued that if you hold that position, you can't make any truth claims, much less the claim that God doesn't exist.
So what what is your argument that God exists?
Like?
How if you had a couple of sentences to describe that God exists, what would you say?
It's an argument from the impossibility of the contrary that without the ex existence of a specific type of Christian God that we argue for, you could not have a basis for knowledge. Claims for ethical claims or claims about reality that could not be epistemically grounded are justified.
So what would you say to someone that says, like, the idea of God is a phenomenon that human nature prescribes to because we have an ability to reason, right, like for example, like an animal that.
Yeah, So those are all assertions and the ability to do those things does not make it true, nor does it prove that it's universally the case or true.
Right, But like evolution is not only physiological right like it could be.
So now you're digging the hole even deeper because appealing to a principle of change in nature does not in any way prove the.
First But why but why is digging a whole deeper and bad thing? Why is that discrediting?
Okay, you're trolling. You can't be a serious person. What's something for him? If anybody wants to come on and you would like to present an argument, ask a question, give a challenge, you can. We seem to be getting not serious people now. So maybe I made a mistake in coming back here. I don't know. But any atheist, any materialists, any Roman Catholics, any Muslims, and the evangelicals. I've restarted this whole space for that druid guy, and
he was just waste. I can't believe wasted everybody's time. Just try to have a good connection. Man, what's up?
You heard me?
Yeah, I promise this would be the last time I'll call him today.
But it's fine. It was just hard to hear you last time.
Yeah.
No, I was working, man, and I I draw a trug for living.
So well that's yeah, that's what that was.
This question pertains to, like, well, yeah, this is what I was gonna say earlier, and it's sorry about that. In regards to like the Protestant circles like on Twitter, uh, I see Luisi and Rachel Lanny here, so maybe one of them can call in like right after me and speak to it, because I know Rachel interacts with these people all the damn time, especially the women.
Uh.
And I've seen Luigi going back and forth with some of them like the past couple of weeks or whatever.
But have you heard of this, uh?
That that ship that George Jenko does, the the orthor not not the Christian Avengers. It's basically just him and like him and a whole bunch of other Protestants. Uh, that that city that like get together, Like I'm not sure if they do, they get together whatever and they I'm not exactly sure if it's just like reading like quote minding quote minding the Bible or whatever, but I mean, that's that's essimply what it's gonna amount to be.
The way it's right.
So like the the one that Andrew got into a debate with quote the debate with a couple of months ago. And this is why I wish Chase was still on here early, because he he got on the the space with auto correct, like right after this happened, and he started like he started like really getting into it with her, like he was questioning, you know her, he was I guess you could say he was pre supping her and
like it. And he was like the spelling this notion that Andrew couldn't be a Christian because he was mean like this this ship that they always say that, you know, if you're like, they discredit you being a Christian, if you're what they considered to be mean.
Or or whatever the hell that means.
And I guess my question is like, if if if any of us could point out these people to you, is there any way you would you would like kind of reach out to him to tell him to come to the spaces.
Because I just messedge the autor correct one right now, So that's what you're talking about. I mean, I don't think she'll come in here. Let me try again. You notice what happened with that honey badger woman. It's weird because the women all say that like they want a debate on Twitter, but they want a debate about who's debating me. They want to debate tone policing. They don't want to ever actually talk about any issues, so, which
is really immature. I mean, it's like Bryson level stuff, Crusader. It's like debating with children. Honestly, like Bryson as a child, Debating with these women's like a child.
Hey, Jake, can you me Yeah, well, if you get any background noise, I'm outside walking. I think the druidic four winds might be picking up or something.
I must start using that argument next time somebody asks for justification, I want to say, there's four wins, So proved that transcen argument for four. Maybe he was breaking Maybe he was breaking it for.
Well, you know, four is bigger than three. So I guess the Druidik for wins beat our trinity exactly.
Quick question.
I don't want to dredge up old topics. I know you're looking to move away from the Christian Zionism discussion. I just had a quick question about the tweet a few days ago. You said there's no problem with the Jewish state or anything like that. Do you think that necessitates it being in the Holy Land or could that be anywhere?
No, it was originally going to be uh in Germany, and then they were talking about Australia, so even the Zionists did not conceive of it as literally the land over in Palestine Israel. That was the decision of the British Empire. You should listen to my talks on the history of the British Empire in this regard.
Absolutely, I will check those out well. Perfectly answered my question.
Have a great day.
Yep, all right, it's open for we have the actual Antichrist with us. According to Chase earlier, I don't know if he has heard, but he was once again arguing that his brother is, as the Beacons say, the best candidate for Antichrist. So I was hoping that Donnie Darkened guy was going to come back in here, because apparently he thinks Trump is Antichrist, and I wanted to get Tristan to come on and debate him, because if Tristan's the Antichrist, like this could easily undercut any argument Donnie
darkined has. So I thought that was I thought that could be an interesting showdown, But maybe not. I don't know. Do we have any other Druids or atheists, or Catholics or muslim I can't believe I created a whole space and the guy was just here to just joke around, have drunk. I mean, but what do you What do I expect from a Druid? Right? Dude was like, it's druid. There's no word druid is. It's like, man, people have
no idea what having an actual debate is. It's it's kind of comical and weird and just dystopian all at once. Like people think that acting like an idiot is a debate, which I can. I can act just as idiotic as they can. It's open for me. If you have a question upon about Druid's atheist, Catholics, Mormons, Muslims, and evangelical's liberals. If you had questions about the earlier topics, that's fine, we can go back to that. If you know chases
with us. I think he can speak to the possibility that his brother's Antichrist versus Donnie Darkin's challenge that Trump is Antichrist. Maybe maybe not. I don't know who are all the two hundred and who are the three hundred people in here that don't ever request a speaker. I want to talk like what the heck is going through you guys's in mind? Uh, well, it looks like Chase Haggards is chickened out. He has declined to actually confront his brother as Antichrist. So Sean, what's up, dude, Hope.
So I'm just wondering how you like consolidate those two things, considering that would leave space open obviously for like a schism.
Uh, you've seen in the past.
I believe with them.
You have to be trolling with me again. You literally think that the papacy is what grounds objective reality. Actually, I think that makes sense for you guys, because you guys are actually kind of saying he's basically priced. I mean, you can't be serious.
Well no, it's actually if you're are you aware of the pollen mess and Barlem controversy.
Yeah, I've read all the texts, So there you go.
How can you have objective reality when you have people within your own orthodoxy that disagree with each other?
Oh my gosh, you can't be this stupid. You have to be trolling. Well, that's not an answer. It's because the question is so stupid or you have mental problems that it's like hard for me.
There's an objective truth, correct, of course. So oh so you're just so like, explain your position at least?
Then are you?
Do you?
Are you a mentally retarded person? No, I'm being serious. I'm not being mean to you. I'm asking like, do you have a mental challenge? No? Okay, how would the papacy prove objective truth?
No?
No, I'm trying to get you to rationalize your belief in objective reality while also saying.
You said that that was connected to the pope, which is one of the stupidest things I've ever Well.
No, I think that if you were an objective person like you believe in a universal truth, you would lean more towards a papacy than towards orthodoxy, which has a bunch of different you know where I'm coming at.
No, I mean, I think you have no clue what you're talking about. But you just learned some of the stuff, and you think that it's a good argument.
Okay, Well I have alread you heard any good arguments from you either.
Yeah, you want a good argument? How about this? The papacy contradicts because in Dictatus Pope and in When I'm Sanctum, it teaches that the temporal supremacy of the pope as a world ruler an emperor is necessary for salvation, and post Vatican to the Romanchelloy Church no longer teaches this.
Right, So I kind of understand what you're saying, But at the same time, I just don't know how you can consolidate being a universalist and at the same time having.
Multiple a universalists.
What are you Well, you said you believe in an objective truth, right, Like, so that.
Means that's not what universalism is.
Okay, then what is your universalism?
Okay, that's that's universal salvation for all people. What does that have to do with the question I asked you about the papacy?
Uh, Honestly, I'm I'm one of these the Catholic bros, those who's kind.
Of looking Okay, you're a person.
This is a joke.
This is a joke. Perennial pariah. It's funny when I literally cannot tell if it's a person trolling me as a Catholic or if they're actually that retarded that they believe that. That's like Muslim teer, like I bet you that guy couldn't restate a hypothetical. I mean, I just perennial on you. Hey, Jay, can you hear me?
Okay?
I just want to say that I've recently been going to Orthodox church here in Oklahoma City.
Cool.
You asked, who are these people who aren't speaking that are just listening?
Well, that's me.
You know, I have a hard time following some of your stuff because you're so intellectual, but you've actually led me down this road over the past few years, and I want to thank you.
But as a libertarian.
I'm not trying to I'm not trying to debate you, but I'd like you to kind of clarify and defend your position on why you can't be libertarian and Orthodox.
Well, I think most of the time libertarianism comes with a lot of the Enlightenment assumptions such as atomized individualism, liberty of conscience, of total free speech, and freedom of the press. And I think that most of the time it's antithetical to the idea of the Byzantine symphonia model
of the state and an explicitly Christian state. There could be some future possible formulation of a minimal state with maximal liberty, perhaps it's not necessarily ideologically impossible, but most of the Enlightenment presuppositions are bound up with anti Christian Enlightenment philosophy, which at its root is not Orthodox.
Sure, that's kind of how I see the Big L Libertarian Party kind of moving to.
And you think just the.
Natural movement of the libertarian I think it had.
To get specific, like about like you know, specifically what elements of Enlightenment adamized liberalism, you know we're talking about if we mean like John Locke's philosophy, Like none of that fits with orthodox Christian theology. I just think usually the negative liberty definition of the state is antithetical to the notion of the Christian sacrament or almost sacrament of coronation for a king or remember.
Okay, so you're more on the lines of believing we should have like an orthodox state or a.
Moneg that's the tradition of the church. Every saint in the history of the Church has been monarchists that we know of. There are no saints that are democracy proponents or republic proponents. I suppose it's possible there could be one, but I think if the entire ethos of the church has been all the way up until Saint John acron Stat you know, who wrote some really good works defending monarchy,
there's really not any place for democracy or republic. That does not mean that I favor, you know, I bloated bureaucracy or something like that, but I do agree with you know, free exchange, some sort of balance between a minimal authoritative state and you know, free exchange of goods and so forth. Services. You've got to have some kind of tariffs too, So you know, I'm not exactly sure what the answers are to all of that, but I
do think that you can't. I mean, libertarian Enlightenment philosophy is basically, you know, we have no masters but ourselves, and the tradition of the Church is that God institute a church and state the Byzantine double headed eagle. Now, within that model, you could argue for a minimal state, which I think is convincing. That's a that's a pretty solid argument. But that's as far as I guess I could argue, because I don't have old I don't know.
I mean, these are all kind of in the realm of theory, right, their theoretical arguments because they don't really touch the real world, because you know, the real world is what we have, So that's all pragmatic real politics.
Yonkers, Get on, Hi, did you bring me up?
Sorry?
Yeah, that's that's why I called her name.
Sorry, there was a delay. Yeah, it must be the app What I wanted to ask about is polemism or hei sichasm, as far as I understand, which is the idea, and I don't mean to be overly simplistic of you know, through high schochastic prayer experiencing like the uncreated energies of God?
Do I have that right day?
Is that to just wrap the correctly?
No, that's that's correct.
Well, I guess the Catholic original critique is of it being very subjective and that like salvation is mainly through baptism and the Eucharist, and you know saints can have.
Well hold on. So then the writings of Saint Gregory, the prayer and the experience of those things is not distinct or divided or separated from the liturgy of the Church, and in fact, some of the New Theologian argues that the sacraments make the hesochastic mystical experience available to all Christians. In fact, he was actually kicked out of the monastery over this point.
Okay, this is something I was kind of confused about. So it's not something that is because I think the Catholic critique, and it sounds like this may be inaccurate, is that there's almost like two layers. It creates two layers where it's like one layers the people who are baptized and receive confession and you receive the sacraments. Of course, doing it in the right attitude, go ahead of what we're gonna say.
Now, you're right about that, because in fact, when Saint Simon and you Theologian was arguing against this actual problem, he got kicked out of the monastery for arguing that they had fallen into a kind of messallionism. And then when he's restored and vindicated, he's actually made a saying precisely on this very point. So actually what you're bringing up is a relevant topic. I would recommend reading his
mystical discourses. Yeah, because he actually treats, he actually discusses this very subject.
Yeah, I don't mean a hog up time.
But if I'm not mistaken a vagarous, I don't think a vagarous is even been canonized officially, if I'm not mistaken by either the Eastern Orthodox or Catholics.
Because I'm pretty sure he has some heterodox views. So I don't think we could canonize that.
Okay, I think of okay, never mind then, but yeah, I mean the Vigrus is considered kind of like a proto hysochist, and so it was marcarious.
But anyway, I didn't.
Well, it's true that so it with some of the some of those guys were influenced by origin, and if you look at uh, even the Cappadocians were influenced by origin. But we would definitely not include uh Evagrius, if I recall amongst amongst the saints. I don't know why that guy was thumbing down. I was about to bring him up. Oh so if you're if you're the dude that was trying to come to bate, you can come back.
No, he's just never mind him.
He's just a guy.
It did ignore him. He wasn't even go on with your points.
You know who that guy.
Yeah, it's just stupid. It's it's not even related to you or this discussion. It's just like a personal it's just really it's silly for forget about him.
But so he's somebody that trolls he yeah, like.
It's it's a very complicated lore. But like I didn't want to get into it. We're okay, though, he's cool, but uh, just getting back to the main point of this discussion.
Sure, go ahead.
Oh no, no, you were.
Completing something about a vagarious I guess.
But well, if I recall, he's an originist explicitly, and he's not accepted in the Orthodox tradition precisely because of his uh originist.
Positions, right right, No, I well, I appreciate you clarifying this. And for the record, I am a Roman Catholic, and my understanding of Pola Mos was that, you know, it was condemned because it was who's so close to masculinism, So I'm interested.
I mean, I thought, yeah, but it's not Missianism because precisely because of the controversies of Saint Simeon, the New theologian who's a very important person Orthodox Church.
Anyway, thank you for clarifying that. I'll read more about Saint Simeon.
Yeah, he has a Vladimir's snic for us Prince his I think it's a four volume a little easy four volume set, and I don't remember at the top of my head. I've got it in the in the library, but I don't remember which volume deals with the energies. But one of the volumes specifically does banana teine Emperor? What'soe?
Dude?
Can you hear me?
There's a serious lag on spaces today. Yeah, okay, yeah, talking about that Catholic a couple of minutes ago with the whole objective true thing. Same people who won't acknowledge that they make like arbitrary standards for uh, you know what category defines truth, whether that be religious practice or what the Pope said where he's sitting. So, but I did have a question about synods in the Orthodox Church, and there's a constant thing I say.
I'm not an expert on synods, but I will comment to my olgure.
Yeah, it's just actually about a speaking of Catholic talking points. They make a consistent talking point that we've never had an ecumenical council, But I feel like when I look it up, I kind of get mixed answers as to the difference in practicality of like what was.
So the term ecumenical council only applies when there was an Orthodox oiticumene or imperium. So when the Byzantine Empire fell, it doesn't make sense there would be quote ecumenical councils anymore. There's no emperor. That's what the emperor called all the councils. Even Roman Catholics are forced to admit that some of the some of the characteristics of quote ecumenical councils include, by the time of Gregor the Great, the pentarchy. Even
Roman Catholics submit this. So if Rome skives them against all the other four patriarchis, which is what happened, then by Rome's definition, there's no pentarchical ecumenical council anymore. And so even in their listing and accounting, they're inconsistent because they don't count latter than six forty nine as an
ecumenical council when it should count as one. So by default, their rejection of six forty nine and accepting the six Seconmenical Council proves our position that our position was the norm at that time, because if the Pope confirmed the condemnation of the Monothelites in six forty nine, there would not have been a need for the six Ecumenical Council to solve the Monothelite issue.
Okay, got it?
Yeah, because I feel like there's.
And then beyond that, if the Orthodox Church throughout the entire world accepts the Palomite Synods and the Phocian Synon, those are eight and nine.
Yes, So in practicality, those are what semantically, I guess the Catholics would describe as quotes. I don't know the same level as what an ecumenical.
They're literally called an Orthodox Church. They're called pan Orthodox because they've been accepted by and received by the Orthodoxy.
Yeah, so I'm familiar with that. But there's this weird thing. Have you noticed this thing that apologists do where they say, we haven't been able to hold a sit on or sorry, not ecumenical councils since the schism, as if it's like presupposing that it has to be ecumenical in order for it to be like binding, like just because of the word.
Yeah, well, that's exactly. They assume that for the Church to be governed or to be guided, there has to be quote ecumenical councils. But all all you have to do is ask them, how did a Christian in the year three hundred know what the teaching of the church was? Who wasn't in the vicinity of Rome.
Yeah, that makes sense, that's a good rebuttal so.
There's no ecamenical councils. They don't have access to Rome, so nobody knows what Christianity is throughout the Roman Empire unless they literally walked up to Rome and ask them what the faith is. That's stupid.
Yeah, I mean it'd be like saying, like, you know, you're you're a druid because you made Rejuvenation Druid and World Warcraft in two thousand and eight and then got out of space to make an entire space for somebody.
Yeah.
Anyways, thanks, Yeah. I mean I think that there are other documents too that are pretty much universally accepted, like the Letter of the Patriarchs to the Pope, for example. I mean, we wouldn't say, oh, it's infallible, but I don't know of anybody in the Orthodox world that rejects, you know, the encyclicals of the patriarch. Patriarch it's slang Durino.
Hey, Jay, I've been having some discussions with some artheists friends, and I've been getting the arguments quite often that the things that you talk about in tag that are pretty existing, you know, like the laws of logic, are basically man made. And I was hoping for one hit ko to that, like, if you can flesh out why these things are already exist and we didn't create them, that's a question and text in advance.
I'm sorry if somebody messaged me, could you repeat the question?
Yeah?
Sure. So in fact, you've been saying that some things, like the metaphysical concepts like numbers, like loads of logics, et cetera, are basically pre existing and not man made. And I've been getting the argument from some athets fans that these things have been used by people because we made them for our.
Right, So if they are social constructs, then they can be otherwise.
Yeah, that's what I've been saying that. I was hoping for.
Laws of logic to say that they could be otherwise it would mean that there's not actually any fixed governing rules of thought or critical thinking or logic. So, I mean, this is the stupidest thinking that if we all just come together and say two plus two populus five, then it becomes five. I mean, it's that stupid. But even if that were the case, then we really couldn't know
anything because what makes it true the consensus. Well, if it's the consensus, then anytime there's a new consensus, then there's a new truth. But we would not be able to know at any given time what the actual consensus was, and so it would ultimately be self refuting even if you admitted that quote truth is determined by the consensus. Furthermore, how do we know that truth is concerned by the
determined by the consensus? And that proposition itself would also be subject to revision if the consensus reject did to the proposition that truth is determined by consensus. So it's a completely stupid self defeating It's so dumb it makes uh sentences impossible, Like you can't even make a sentence if you actually believe that, because you couldn't even assure anyone that the meaning of the sentence that you just
gave is the same meaning two seconds later. I mean, it's just complete, it's totally destructive to the possibility of knowledge at all. Now I've asked all these Protestant people and women to they won't, they won't debate. These these people are so just arrogant, Like this woman says, the throne of Jesus defends itself. It doesn't need my defense because I was super pious. So now they want to
fuss all day, but they can't. They can't. Actually, if anything, hm, anybody else, it's open for him for any topics, Protestant, Atheists, Catholic, Muslim, Evangelical, Calvinist, liberal, uh.
Whatever else. For now, can I speak to you? Can you hear me?
I have it?
Yeah.
Well, I have a a friend who is going to preacher school and he's going into Pentecostal and it's it's kind of a wild ride because I knew him before all this, and now he's kind of, you know, turned into kind of a different animal. But I asked him, I sent him your video that I thought was epic with misfit Patriot, and asked him about Christian Zionism, which I.
Know he's against, but he has this new.
Take on it, and this is what he told me. He says, what I know about Christian Zionism is it's not the same now as it was when the colonial the colonists arrived, and he said, the original there.
Is no such thing as Christian Zionism before.
That's what I'm thinking.
And then he said, the original premise was to create a nation of Christians, by Christians, for Christians. Then somewhere along the way it twisted into what we have now, which is some.
What none of that is that has nothing to do with with Zionism, That's what I thought.
So I just wondered how you would respond to that.
I mean, he's going to school.
Yeah, I mean, it's so stupid. It's like hard to even reply to slang arena anybody else. So this is really weird. We got some like wildly low tier stuff, and I honestly can't even tell people are joking or being serious, Like it doesn't it's it's really hard to tell.
And if they're troubling, it's actually pretty funny. I have to admit that coming on and saying that the Pope proves objective reality, that's actually pretty awesome because it's like a summation of every critique of the papacy ever in one weird, delusional argument. But I cannot tell that guys being serious or not. I mean, it was just like, wow.
Ian, go ahead, Hey, I just had a quick question.
Are you familiar with the Philip Colia of Origin?
Origin didn't write to Philip Colia. It's a mystical text. You're talking about the text of the church. It's like four volumes is translated.
By No, it's the Philiclia of Origin. It's a compilation. Okay, well if that kind of defeats the point of the question, but it's a compilation of writings of Origin compiled by Saint Gregory Nonzianzis and Saint Basil the great really interesting text. But my question was specifically about a chapter in that in that text, So.
No, I did not, I don't, we don't. I don't follow Origin at all. So I mean, I understand he was influential on the Capit oceans.
But yeah, no, I just thought it was an interesting text, and one of the chapters included was something that sounded very contrary to what else Saint Basil, and it was weird that it.
Was included in there.
But what was included, I believe it's chapter seventeen, and they include an argument that.
Origin makes about.
Basically, Origin goes through and makes you an argument that it would almost be sinful to translate the name of God out of the original language because that name God is specifically tied to the God of Christianity basically, and it just seems contrary.
Two arguments that.
The way the Jews view the touch of grammar.
Yes, yep, pretty much.
Yeah, it was an interesting chapter, but it seems contrary to what I understand. At least it's like Saint Gregory Nissa argues against you know me, it's at points that language is a social construct and the name of God doesn't have any value just because of the letters of it.
Yes, that's it. Yeah, that's a good question. I mean, I don't know that. This is kind of the basis for like, you know, the Hebrew roots type people that like, oh, if you say you know yahweh and yes you are, this is not more powerful than if you say Jesus. Right. But no, it's a good question. I don't know about that. I've not read it. I've read some of the Origins on the First Principles against Celsus, and that's about it.
I've not spent a whole lot of time in origin. Now, let's see, I've reached out to several more of these weirdos that have been talking smack, and none of them will come. So I can't get the Mormon girl to come in here, and I can't get the reformed veteran to come in here. Those are always the best, and I can't get autocorrect to come in here. These are
just like loons, dude. And it's weird because I'll come in here and say the craziest stuff and then they act like I can't handle them, and I'm scared to debate because they just say, crazy shit, what's that? Shistani? Thanks for having me on man.
So I was looking at the Islamic de Leva recently and I'm trying to, like, I don't know on board. I'm trying to think of a way that they can possibly harmonize it or fix it. And one thing that they seem to mention is that when we bring up five forty seven, they'll say that it's only referencing the law or like the moral teachings, that somehow we're not supposed to judge by the entire thing. I don't know, what do you think about that?
Well, but it's not just five forty seven. There's like fifteen or twenty versus in the Quran. So if you pile all those up about prior revelation, it's I think i'm more damning thing.
Yeah, because I think they're being kind of inferential if they're saying that confirming means only confirming in a general sense or in a like agrees with.
Well, yeah, it really doesn't confirm anything if it just means to reinterpret to the choral exactly.
But could they also say that, because there's some verses that talk about distortion or concealment or some Jews writing a false book, that we're also being inferential if we say that we're confirming that it confirms wholesale all of the texts, that we're also being influential in the same right.
Well, I think the point is that when you ask them how you know which ones are confirmed to which ones aren't, it just again ends up being one of the Quran says, So to say that I'm also the text that doesn't say that the Jews corrupted the text. It says they twisted it with the tongues and illiterately.
Yeah, I agree, I agree.
I don't think it assumes like wholesale corruption either, because it's only a party of them and it's only a part right.
But even if you say it's partial corruption, there's no epistemic guide has to know what is and isn't corrupt. For example, they'll say that the Bible predicts Mohammed, and it's like, but you said the Bible's corrupt, Oh, but not there. Yeah, exactly right, So all you have to do it's just a media double standards exact same thing. Mare.
I also see that like in five forty eight, for example, when they say that it supersedes the prior scripture, that only kind of reinforces the circle that they have because they're just going to look through it through the Koran itself.
Yeah, but they're not understanding that that's not answering or solving the question of what is the epistemic criterion to know the truth from the false? And it's just a circle. Like I said to.
Daniel, I don't think I did a video that's like twenty eight ish minutes where I covered all of the korntexts, and by the way, in that video, I think I missed one or two.
So if you list all those out, I think it's even more devastating.
Do you know what the Yeah, yeah, I saw it actually, and I looked at all the persons, actually myself, but it was like some Muslim Like I saw his response and he was like, well, we confirm the early Muslims. He said that they believe that they are confirmed in the sense that they are scriptures of God, even though some of it is not necessarily completely true or false or what. I don't know what the hell he said,
but it's just so strange. It's like they have this weird kind of filtered that they used through I don't know.
Yeah, that filter is called spiritual blindness and low IQ, which is why in that six hour video, not one of them could restate what a hypothetical was, no matter how many times and explanations and examples I gave so and I don't think Bryson could restate hypothetical either. I think a lot of these evangelicals, by the way, are too stupid to actually restated hypothetical. This Mormon girl says she's gonna come on, she's the one arguing with me
earlier that Albert Pike is not a bad guy. Freemasonry is just a fraternity. Who cares if it's where Joseph Smith got the temple rituals from? And she never addressed the question about Joseph Smith adding versus. So here she is. You can have the floor and say whatever you'd like. Well, adding eleven verses to Genesis fifty to predict yourself as a classic conment tactic.
Give me more con men who have altered the Bible, in your opinion, altered the Bible.
What would me giving more con men have to do with whether that action itself is fraudulent?
Validity to context?
Validity to context? I mean, it's a fact in your JTS translation that he added those verses. It doesn't exist in any manuscript prior Joseph Smith.
Again, give me examples of other con men who have done something similar.
There's tons of religious sex cults that have created and copied and paste of their own texts together.
Like Mohammed, but none of them have far reaching dominance, like the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterite Saints. So what's the law?
Islam is far bigger than the LDS.
I disagree with that.
Now there's a million or a billion Muslims in.
The world, all devout practicing or just like claiming when there's a war ensuing, there are.
One billion professing Muslims in the world. To what degree that's quote practice has doesn't even come close to the number of Latter day Saints in the world.
It's a preposterous and you keep track of this number daily.
You could look at any Pew Research poll. There's literally no comparison between the LDS and the existence of Muslims in the world. It's a laughable claim.
You're the one. You're the one that is aggressive about it.
Now, now it's a tone fully and you're a victim.
It's oh did I say it was a victim. I'm just calling you out on the fact that you pander. You can't actually debate, you can't call me and without using the words stupid, you can't go without you because.
It's a fallacy to say that. Because there's a lot of believers, it's therefore true.
You say it.
You're the one language an appeal.
To maths fallacy. It's an appeal to the math's fallacy.
Okay, so you're an orthodox apologist Eastern Is that what I'm getting.
That's a that's a two two quot white fallacy.
But answer me, what is your religious preference? Because it says that you are an Eastern Orthodox apologist? Okay, what does that mean? Where did that even come.
From the church that Jesus set up In the first proof you can read the church fathers from the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth century. Okay, they teach, They teach what the Orthodox Church teaches. If you go read the post Apostolic fathers like Ignacious Clement, Cyprian Irenaeus.
It just feels ambiguous. Why are you claiming to be the one true church?
If there's I gave you specific people and their writings.
And I'm giving you specific people in their writings, But it's still what are you standing for? What are you that you're standing for?
You haven't even covered the fact.
Standing for Jesus Christ. You're saying ambiguously that your religion is the one truth I.
Gave you The first, second, third, fourth the Bible comes from the Orthodox Church. Those church fathers can be read today. I listed multiple of them to you specifically by name. Do you want their writings?
I would love that.
I would also love to know why there is such indifference about the origin of the Bible, translation of the Bible. Why are.
People are.
Why do you keep interrupting me when you don't have any clue what you're talking about tonight? You don't even know what a genetic fallacy is or what a what a vox popular appeal to masses fallacy is. You're literally just spitting out fallacies, non stuff. You don't even know what do you.
Even know what the word fallacy means? Because you throw this crap out there, and I don't think you have your.
I listed the ones that you're using.
Well, I like.
Claim to the fact that you're not Orthodoxy anything. You're practicing priestcraft. You rebrand everybody in accordance to your sophistication.
And your your own your own cult believes in a priest class. What are you talking about?
Class? We believe in the ironic milchistic priesto. They are Biblical references.
Yeah right, No, the ironic PRIs.
Is in your Bible.
Read your Brew seven says the priesthood of Aaron ended when the milk is the decade was set up with Christ. Christ does the milk is Adecian priesthood?
You're a judaizing you literally just each just told me what is the truth and ambiguous?
Hebrew seven? Correct? I told you the truth Hebrew seven, right.
No, you're just ambiguous and you're not a debater.
And Hebrew seven is ambiguous. I saw it literally, the actual fallacies, the actual writings, the actual chapters and texts. And you're calling me in.
No, I'm calling you a panderer. Huge difference.
So now it's that homonym. So you just have another fallacy.
And again, this isn't a debate, This isn't even an intellectual debate.
It is you What what does it say at the top of this stream?
I thought you called me in for a debate. I don't care what it says on top of your I don't care what you are branding this. You brand everything.
You've read everything. What is debate governed by It's governed by the rules of thought. Those are called the laws of logic, and when you violate them, they're called fallacies. And I listed four fallacies already that you've committed.
No, you rebranded me in accordance with your religion, which is everything you say is as far as fallacy. Everything you hate about the Mormon religion is everything that your religion really claims to with the exception of the law of chastity, which every.
Orthodox do you know what a to do? You know what a too quo is?
Continue?
What?
What? What is it? Tell me your definition.
Of a fallacy where when I make an argument and you ask a question back to me, you say, well, what about you? That's a fallacy?
I mean, is it wrong to do when you are so accusatory?
So now you're tone policing and playing victory. I'm not playing.
I'm not offended by you. I'm annoyed by you because you can't debate. You pander and it's annoying. And like I said, your birthday that I need to be focusing on. I shouldn't have even jumped in here with you until it was a proper debate. You said one on one debate about.
A proper debate is where you abide by the laws of logic and don't commit That is, if you.
Don't debate, you pander. You're just trying to impress these people.
You don't even know what a debate is. You literally just committed multiple fallows. Su irish on you.
Hello, hello, yeah man, hi jay, I just wanted to ask hold on I need a cough.
I hope you guys understand now why I get frustrated when people say, Rachel, why won't you debate the smart women. You need to debate the smart women. And I'm like, find them, show me where they are, because every time a woman comes to debate, that's what you get. They have no idea what they're talking about.
They don't have that that's going to be a great club. I mean it's kind of funny, like it was. Every every phrase coming out of her mouth was a cell phone.
Yes, but generally, and I don't even fault women for it because I understand, I'm I'm weird, I'm very abnormal in this way, and that for most women it's like they they don't Yeah, they don't even know how to like behave in in that way. They don't know how to do anything besides, you know, filter everything through emotions.
They argue like Bryce their bryceon level debaters.
Yeah, And I mean that's fine. That's why I usually end up if I do debates, I end up debating a lot of men. And but then people will get upset with me and they'll say, oh, you just you pick the lowest hanging for you just debate stupid women. You just debate you know, only fans chicks. And I'm like, listen, first of all, I've debated multiple women with degrees like masters and PhD level degrees, and they're not much better.
And it's just not how, it's not how. Most women they don't even know how to act in a debate. They don't even know how to function because they get upset and they do what that lady just did.
So yep, yeah, And that's why typically I don't debate women unless they want to come in here and debates. Yeah, what's up, jolly, you're coming down? What's your problem? I'm mute, jolly, jolly, go ahead, Irish, go ahead, Okay, cool, just to practice.
I'm an Irish Catholic and I heard you on a space It was probably like a week ago where you tell me if I'm misrepresenting you or whatever. But you were discouraging Orthodox from praying the Rosary because you said a lot of the people who are who pray the Rosary use how would you say, like ignation, imaginative.
Prayer, imaginative prayer.
Yeah, personally, I'm friends with an Orthodox monk who praise the Rosary. I don't know, but yeah, yeah, it is the norm. It's just it's outside of your tradition as well. But I was wondering, so, like in my personal experience, the majority of the people I know who pray the Rosary do it with a sort of lazio divina instead of imagination. Personally, I don't touch imagination. I don't see it as very fruitful.
Yeah, well, so I think the thing is the other thing about the Rosary is that it implicitly implies that Mary really did give that to Dominic. Right, So the lore of the Rosary in the Western Church is that Mary appears to Saint Dominic the Dominicans, and to pray the Rosary suggests that that is the case. And I don't believe that that's the case. So a good question. I'm not trying to be rude, jolly, what's up?
You know?
I'm here to represent either the atheists or the tradcats, whatever, whatever side needs bolstering. L I'll argue, well, what are you?
Why would you not represent the.
Position that you Actually I'm kind of both.
How could you beat both?
Yeah, it's a it's a good question. I don't know. And when I when I figured that out. I'll let you know.
Well, are you traskay? Go ahead, I'm just saying, are you trashed? You just in.
Between s la what do you want to say?
Oh no, I'm not gonna lie.
I just came up here to tell you to kick the woman from before because.
I don't.
Yeah, well, I mean it was funny. So it's funny though that you can't like when people are like super emotional, you can't reason with them, like they get into these tizzies and then they kind of have a meltdown and they spiral and you can't like they've already kind of lost the ability to have self control and reasoning. So you'll notice every time I pointed out a fallacy, she was just like that, it's not a fallacy. There's no
who cares. Fallacies don't matter. What's a fallacy. It's like not thinking about just like machine guns spiraling and the reason for that. And I don't blame her too, because if Joseph Smith added versus to the Bible, which he did, you can go to look on the Mormon website, said Genesis fifty, the Joseph Smith translation, then that means he's a con man. And if he's a con man, then
her paradigm collapses. So when you notice and when you see these kinds of like crazy reactions from people like that or this sort of spiraling, a lot of times it's also not just because of emotions or because they're a female, or I mean, because a lot of dudes and spurgs do it too. Is because of the fear that the paradigm might be be wrong, or the fear that they might look bad in the debate or whatever. So there's a lot of things going to be going on in a person's mind that causes them to kind
of lash out in that way. Anybody else open forum, Atheism, Druidism, Catholicism, Islam, evangelicalism, liberalism, it's open for them if you want to hop on. I might call it an evening. We got a couple singers out of all that. Look for people who I guess we'll go to you man. But I don't really tend to like to debate people that are debating in bad faith. It's just kind of saying feels fake, Well, how would it be in good for well?
How is it?
What do you mean?
How is it?
I was an atheist for twenty five years and then I and then I understood, uh, the Catholic Church. So I can I can argue from both positions because I argued as an atheist for twenty five years.
It's not in good faith if you no longer believe atheism?
What do you we can debate? What good FAI means? I can? I can still present every argument I ever presented. What does it have to do? What does it have to do with the debate? That's not what debates. Okay, No, you're not a serious person. You're a faggot. You're a loser. You're afraid. You're afraid of the debate. Well, come on, have at it. Let's go show me how I'm wrong.
Okay, Well, you choose the positions.
I'll choose atheism.
Okay, why is atheism drew because you have no evidence? What is the basis for believing in evidence? What does that mean the base?
Well, evidence is how we come to understand truth.
And how do you know that from an epistemic standpoint?
Well, it's just it's natural to a human person to be exposed to information, and you process the information and you say, well I don't know, and then you repeat the process and you come to learn so I would argue from I guess we'll call it a empirical basis of understanding knowledge.
Okay, do you have universal empirical experience?
Universal, which is to say that I have the experience of all life?
No.
In logic, universal claims are anything that's preceded by what's called a quantifier, which would be all every et cetera. So if all knowledge comes from sense data, is that proposition itself found in sense data? Yeah, the proposition itself is found in sensitive Where do you find the truth of a proposition in sense.
Data within itself?
So that's a circle.
Well, that's what that's what thinking. Thinking is a circle. I think Therefore, am you know you just kind of loop it around? I mean, you can't if if there was a way to understanding you know.
So you can commit fallacies in logic and debate circular arguments.
I try not to, but I'm certainly fallible.
Well you just made a circular argument, So can I commit those as well?
Or not?
Sure?
Okay, So you can commit fallacies.
And no you shouldn't, you know. I'm just saying that you can if you want to try to do that, and if I want to try to pick at it and try to pry it apart and show you where I'm wrong. That's what the fun of a debate is. But you know, this belief that oh I got the right way of knowing things, Well you don't because I don't even know.
You have no clue. You don't even know what you're arguing or what the debate is like. That debate already happened and you already missed.
Is that what.
You argued? That fallacies can be done?
And that's not what I said. All you're twisting my words. You you said, meaning you like, would I allow you to do? And I said, yes, you're permitted.
I mean, can you is it? Does it? Can youolate the laws of logic? Is what I'm asking? Because the circular argument.
Doesn't know you cannot violate the laws of logic.
Okay, then why did you make a circular argument that knowledge just is what it is, meaning just is what it is.
That's not a flaw.
It's a circular argument. You already said it was a circle. That is all law. It's a fallacy called circular argumentation. How come this is why you're not a good?
No?
No.
The reality is that nobody can have a complete and total understanding of absolutely.
That's not what the claim is. I didn't ask you about completely understanding.
I'm making is that you have to you have to approach all knowledge. Did you make aular argument posture right limited?
Did you make a circular argument? You said it was a circle, you said it was self referencing earlier, you said descartes right. Yeah, Okay, so you made a circular argument, and that is.
Nonsense. You're not You're not You're not actually debating anything. You're debating the nature of debate.
I'm pointing out the fallacy of where you lost.
You want you want to sit there and jerk off over terms because you went to school and you learn to what all these words mean, but that that has nothing to do with the truth or knowledge and understanding the debate.
So yeah, so you already lost the debate.
Okay, well that's what you say, Like, let's see some hands. Does anybody I think that it's over?
Nobody? And you're going to be laughed at the entire chat.
Let them laugh at me.
Good, keep going, because you said that fallacies don't matter.
So you know what I said again, You know.
It doesn't matter what terms and what fancy works because fallacies.
You are a bad faith debater because you take something I said is.
What a liar? Literally, everybody tell me that guy down? What a complete clown? H Yeah? An era.
So are we still discussing existence of God or not?
Sure?
So?
Well?
Uh so, because you do not have the whole experience of universe, how can you even make a claim that because you couldn't find the evidence, then there is no evidence because you are made Yeah, while you are making your laziness a burden on you.
Don't even understand the argument. Are you referring to what I said to the previous guy?
Yeah, sort of, because that's from where I joined the debate. Would you like to explain it further?
Right? So, he made a universal claim that all knowledge comes from sense data, and I'm saying that there's two ways, two levels to refute that. One is that the proposition itself is not found in sense data. And also, as an empiricist, he doesn't have access to universal knowledge, which the word all quantifies. So it's a self refuting statement on two levels.
So okay, So what is your stin on God? Because you cannot find the empirical evidence of it, you believe it doesn't exist.
Yeah, but you don't believe in empirical evidence for truth or the claims either, Based on what I just argued to you about empirical clues right truth claims themselves? Can you show me the empirical evidence for the past, for the self, for time, for meaning, for mathematics, for universal propositions, categories logic? Can you show me that? Please? Where are those under the microscope?
Oh?
Well, you wanted under the microscope?
What is empirical?
Wait?
Wait what if it is not material, then how would you find it empirically?
I guess see you don't even understand or.
You don't understand.
Just I reiterated this for you. Okay, let's do this. Can you restate what my argument is? Restay the hypothetical? Can you resay the hypothetic?
No?
I cannot because it is a word salid. It's a word salad.
Basic terms in logic like quantifier and empirical claims.
Are asking question. You are you're not quantified as material? How would you quantify it? How many can you of? What do you want?
You think epistemological is a word solid because you're an un you're an uneducated maybe.
But so because you are educated, explain me.
So can you restate a hypothetical that I made? What's the hypothetical I'm saying.
I'm asking a simple question that what if it is not material?
What?
I answered your question by pointing out that you yourself believe in multiple things that are not material, and so therefore everything that we but we believe in or that we know is therefore not reducible to materialism. There's no it disproves reductionism. But you don't even understand the argument.
No, No, you are just you know, uh, assassinating me rather than.
This conversation. You don't even know what's happening. Like this is crazy level stuff. It's like talking to a child. In all these cases, it's pretty wild, and you think I'm being mean, and it's like, you know, I've restated it politely for that guy about four times, and you understand atheists and these arrogant people, they need to have their position destroyed. Okay, it's not mean to call out these people's foolishness and show that it's foolish. And when
I restate it, what does he say? Word salad, basic terms, our word solid?
Go ahead, Hello, I have a question about Yeah, what's up? I have a question about like versions and compilations of the Quran. I don't really have like an argument to make.
I'm not super knowledgeable in the history of the Koran. So you might want to look up like Jay Jay Smith or whatever that guy's name is, or probably even Sam Schimun knows more about that than me. Feminism, feminism, feminism is evil. I'm mute. If you want to.
Talk, Yes, hi, Jay, I was wonder if it be all right if I read something about the law of identity. Okay. This is from the seventh chapter the second part of Otto Weininger's book Sex and Character from nineteen oh three. So what he writes is in logic. It is a matter of the true meaning of the principle of identity and of contradiction. The many controversies regarding their precedence over each other and the most correct form of their statement is less an issue here. The proposition A equals A
is immediately certain and evident. It is additionally the original template of truth for all other propositions. If someone were to contradict it somewhere, as so often, in a special judgment of the predicate concept something we're asserted of the subject, which would contradict the concept of the same, we would consider it to be wrong, and in the end, if we reflect, this proposition would emerge before us as the
law of our verticality. It is a principle of right and wrong, and he who deems it a tautology which would state nothing and would not promote our thinking. As this has so often happened with Hegel and later with most all empiricists, this is not the only point of contact between apparently so irreconcilable opposites. He is completely correct, but has understood the nature of the proposition poorly. A equals a. The principle of all truth cannot itself be
a special truth. Whoever finds a proposition of identity or of contradiction void of content, has only himself to blame. He presumed to find special thoughts in them, which he hoped was an enrichment of his stock of positive knowledge. But those propositions are not themselves realizations special acts of thinking, but rather the gauge which has laid to all acts
of thinking. This cannot itself be an active thinking, which somehow would allow itself to be compared with the others, the norm of thinking cannot itself be situated in thought. The proposition of identity adds nothing to our knowledge. It does not increase an abundance, which it much more utterly founds in the first place. The proposition of identity is either nothing or it is everything.
Yeah.
I don't really hear anything there I would disagree with. Did you have a reason.
For the quote?
I thought maybe it could shed some light on recent.
Discussions and what in particular.
Maybe saying that a circular argument isn't valid because all arguments reduced to a restatement of the proposition of identity in the end, do they not?
Oh you mean the guy, yes, yes, Oh yeah, I think it would. But I don't think that guy is interested in actually learning what the problem is with that. But you're absolutely right that it definitely sheds light on it. But I think that I think somebody people are staying in the chat that guys just troubles He just goes around and pretends to be positions. So I'm trying to get this other got to come to debate. I don't know what you want anybody else. It's open for him
for atheist Muslims, Catholics, druids, liberals, Evangelicals, Calvinists, Protestants. It's been a while when we already got another four hundred people in here again, so we're back to where we were. I recreated this room for those that left, so Jimbob and FDA. So when I was closing out the other room, this druid came on and he wanted the debate druidism and the space cut out. And so then when I came back and did it, he wasn't even a serious person.
So William Tober was up. He was like a drunk druid. So hello, go ahead, Yeah.
Yeah, I just wanted to say I respect there was that you do, and I'm very glad to be part of this group. So that's all I wanted to do.
Thank you. Anything on your mind, any comments, questions, topics, debates me.
No, I have my own religious battles that have to deal with my church, but I'm not really trying to put it out there in public, you know, So okay, sure, just wanted to stop by and say I respect you.
Well, it's actually I'm appreciate the kind of words astute.
I mean.
Hey, So I came into the discussion a little bit late to I think three people ago, where the guy was arguing in bad faith. I just wanted to hear about that conversation because I don't I didn't really understand what his point was. That there's empirical data that proves that everything exists or that God exists. Is that what he was saying and what was.
Your No, he was arguing in bad faith as an atheist, that all that we know is sense data. So he was just arguing not eve empiricism. And I made two arguments to show that that's self refuting. One that the claim all knowledge comes from sense data is not found
in sense data, and so it's self refuting. Second argument, the claim that all knowledge comes from sense data is a universal claim, which an empiricist by definition cannot have because you would have to have empirical sense data of all reality.
So can you have empirical sense data that like something maybe not as profound as God existing, but like I think you had mentioned, like mathematics or history existing, or that we've had his or you know, yesterday has existed, the past has existed at some point.
No, none of those things are in empirical sense data. That's why I specifically listed non empirical, immaterial, abstract invariant categories, and things that are not empirical, such as the past, the self meaning time. Okay, so universal's logic.
And again I'm very novice. So empirical data. You said you can't make the claim that history exists based off of empirical data. Is that what you were.
Saying the past is not a present empirical sense data reality you do not sense through smell to and there's a there's a giant list of all kinds of things that nobody empirically the senses, and yet we believe.
Can you make the argument that archaeological like fossils are a form.
Of those are not the past. Those are physical objects that existed in the past, but they do not prove the existence of the past.
I see, So you can't visit I guess in a Layman sterns you cannot like physically touch, feel, or see the past.
Or time. That's why time, for example, of con says time is a transcendental category. I would agree with that time is one of those transcenental categories that's necessary for human knowledge. That it is not a direct, directly perceived object of immediate sense.
Data, So then that that means memory can't be an example of that either, correct.
Now, memory is another example that's talk in you.
Okay?
And then my final question, So I'm not an atheist, but I have a lot of atheist friends. So what would you say, And you've probably answered this like hundreds of times, what would you say is the argument for God to God's existence? You don't have to like break it down, but maybe some references that I can read.
So yeah, well, any of the arguments and videos that we've done debating the atheists stuff on mall and you, the Matt Della Hunty, Alex Malpass, any of those debates, would you would find me making this argument that knowledge in any sense, any claim to knowledge, or any possibility of knowledge, requires the preconditions of knowledge, which are some of those categories that I listed, such as meaning such as identity, over time, the external world, universal universals, logic, language.
None of these things are reducible to sense data, and yet we believe in them as preconditions for the possibility of knowledge whatsoever. So then the question is where are those, how are those and what's the justification for those? For us? A divine, omniscient being with an omniscient mind, with personhood with intentionality, and a universe made with purpose or tilos. All of those things are grounded in God, and God is the only type of being that could ground those things.
So the possibility of knowledge presupposes God.
Okay, And.
Does that argument work? Like even I guess even asking about the existence of God presupposes that God exists.
Yeah, I would. I would argue that it would lead to yeah, that's all I have.
Thank you.
Yeah, No, those are good questions. I appreciate your civil attitude. We've not had a lot of civil people tonight.
Justinian, Hey, orthodox Christian.
I actually became an Orthodox Christian because largely in part of your content. But I actually have a friend who is conquiring into Orthodox Christianity, and he had an interesting question then I actually I couldn't immediately answer in the moment. I wanted to maybe shoot it at you get your thoughts on it. So essentially his his question is like,
assuming there was another church council that happened. I know that the typical method is obviously through the emperors, and that there is no emperor, but just assuming for the case that one happened, and it declared something that is obviously heretical true like homosexuality or I don't know, something along those lines, And obviously there would be like a
split of sorts. How would someone who is like an observer of that determine with one hundred percent accuracy that essentially that the people who are splitting off who one side is calling schismatic? How how would they determine that that's the correct side?
Well, it would be obvious that one of the parties is consistent with all the prior teaching and councils and one of the parties is not nice.
I see, yeah, because I essentially because the issue here would be a matter of like if the councils are truly infallible?
Is essentially this is this is what he's bring up.
If the councils truly are infallible, Like, how do you determine their infallibility?
How does how does an outsider? Essentially?
But because before I was kind of questioning, is it like a numbers game? Well you know actually that no.
So so we would disagree with the Roman Catholic type of position that there's any kind of uh necessary, clear, absolute juridical proof of what makes it quote infallible because you could conceivably have many bishops at large councils that are false councils. And we've actually seen, you know, there's the Robber centered to Ephesus, there's the Iconic Class, the
Council of her Era. I mean, so there's plenty of false councils, and really there's no there's no silver bullet like Roman Catholics offer with the papacy, because the papacy doesn't even give you that. So literally, it just has to be what's kind of consistent with the prior Orthodox tradition that's been handed down. And I think, as you gave in your example, like if some council said we are pro schedules now, I mean it would that would be really obvious. Jeff, what's up? Hey, Jay?
How's it going.
So I want to say, first of all, thank you listening to your content a while ago.
I've been going to an Orthodox.
Church for a couple of months now, but I was I was really curious on your perspective of if I, you know, talk to people about the tag debate, and I feel like a lot of men, whether they're atheists or they do believe, they're very interested in it, and it looks very logical and like they want to engage with it. But I've noticed even your audience, a lot of the orthosphere, it's very men.
Well yeah, I think men gravitate towards analytical rational you know, left brain thinking, are you there? What about it? If you're there, you've dropped out. We can't hear you. Maybe come out, come back. Make lying wrong, I mean, make lying wrong. You want to know?
Hi?
Hey, hey, thanks you can you hear me? Okay, okay, thank you. I'm not well trained in philosophy, so please go easy on me. But I my question was, all right, from your perspective, is really religion or Christianity or whatever your faith is. Is it something that can be purely arrived ad based on evidence and reason, or do you think that it requires an act of faith?
I would say that we're not feediists. So what you're describing is called fideism, the idea that you just sort of make this leap and maybe there's some things that suggests that God's existence or maybe the Bible might be inspired, but you just got to make that leap. That's typically a post Protestant, post Enlightenment idea. Again, it'st called fedism, and neither the Roman Catholic Church nor the history of the Orthodox Church supports fideism. It's more so something that
you see in Protestant evangelical circles. So we believe that reasoning is a faculty that does point towards the existence of God. Evidential arguments definitely point towards the existence of God. But I don't set a divide between reasoning and faith. The transcendental argument actually argues that you could not even have the possibility of reason or reasoning if God didn't exist. So it's a much stronger claim.
And do you think that other people who use faith properly always get the right answer or is it possible for lots of different religions and sex or religion to be attempting to use faith and to arrive at different conclusions.
Well, I'm not sure what you mean when you say using faiths or Arabic conclusions. I mean, like, for example, for us, sometimes the word faith refers to an act that an individual does. In terms of like what we're saying. The Greek word is piecedus, that is, to believe and to have sort of certitude about a position. Sometimes quote, faith refers to the entire body of beliefs of a religion, such as divine revelation or the Nicene creed or something like that. So kind of really just depends on what
you mean by the word faith there. But I think we would say that we determine knowledge on in different ways because different things are known in different ways. And you know, for example, God is known not just through reason, but through his own self disclosure or what we call divine revelation. So scripture and the tradition of the church are quote the vine revelation that for us is the faith.
And then when a person believes that they're exercising their faith, But I conceive of it more in a philosophical sense as a paradigm, and I think that's what you're asking.
Yeah, I guess I'm trying to understand. Like in a scientific disagreement, you can oftentimes pinpoint the source of the disagreement and what will be required to persuade the other person. Like if an ancient person believe that, you know, a fertilized human was like a tiny human and then grew up, we can say, ah, well, they didn't have microscopes, they didn't have moder embryology, and you could show them an ultrasound and so on and say, see it's not a
tiny human, it's actually a fetus, and so on. With religion, my question is how do you pinpoint the difference, Like, if someone has a revelation from God and they believe in something based on faith, may be supported by reason and evidence, but you know, certainly driven by faith.
Yeah, but again what you're calling phase there is something that is assuming the dichotomy that I was talking about earlier, where I don't actually believe that there's a dichotomy between quote, believing something on faith versus believing something on the basis of evidence and reason, because I believe that evidence and reasoning are themselves things that presuppose God's existence. So I have it the other way around. I believe that everybody
has faith commitments, including atheists and scientists. They just don't admit that. And when you really drill into it, when you talk about belief in the scientific method, the rationality, logicality, and meaning behind the scientific method, none of those things are proven or known by the scientific method. They're actually just assumed. And then I can further flesh that out by getting into things like the categories of knowledge or
the preconditions of knowledge. None of those things are known, are proven by the scientific method or empirical sense data. So thus those would all be quote faith or faith beliefs or faith propositions according to the way that you're flushing it out. So I don't actually see that big of a difference between a skeptical atheist and a Christian believer.
So do you think that there's not a distinction between like a scientific evidence based approach to understanding a problem versus prayer, revelation or looking at a holy scripture. It's all a form of reason.
I just think it's more nuanced than that that the faculty of reasoning is used in both revelation. Divine revelation is a different type of thing than the type of knowledge or the information that you gain from sense data. I definitely believe that people use the scientific method to study and master the natural world. You couldn't have engineering or science without it. But I don't think that it's equated to divine revelation. But I think that the two
categories necessitate and interrelate with one another. Because we're bodily beings, we have since five senses we have, you know, spatial location that we move around in and God made us that way, but he also made us to not just be beings that operate on since data, but also on higher faculties.
I guess what I'm trying to understand is and sorry, you can move on to that speaker if I'm if I'm trespassing on now as from from my perspective, and you can maybe you disagree with this. There is a critical difference between someone who's using the scientific method to arrive at conclusions, Like if we do a controlled study about whether or not palm reading works, that's different from someone who says I just anecdotally see that it works
and I'm convinced, right. Those are two different things. Or if someone says I'm going to look at drug trials and see if this one cures cancer or not, another person says I'm just going to pray. Those are definitely two different ways of coming to conclusions. And I feel like what I'm asking is, if you use the non scientific way, why do they delete a different conclusions.
I understand what you're saying, but you're missing the point that I'm making about what I mean when I say divine revelation or faith. For example, when I talked about the scientific method itself, I'm saying on a higher level that it's a raising the bar, so to speak. Or I'm asking a more fundamental question that for you to do science presupposed as things that are not under the purview of science, like logic, for example, And science doesn't
and can't prove logic empirically. So science is a faith based enterprise. The only difference is that you have a faith in a finite temporal enterprise, and my faith is actually something that would ground the very possibility of you doing science. Do you see the difference in those claims. I'm making a paradigm level claim.
I think so.
I'm going back to the comment you made earlier about the Mormon who you said you could pinpoint where Joseph Smith, you know, inserted some text, and I feel like in that case you can pinpoint the the the error in his or her reasoning or awareness of the facts right, and you can you could potentially persuade them that they're wrong if they really properly understood the facts and use reason.
And I think I think argument, which is what I'm proposing, has the ability to do that with an atheist I or a materialist.
Or or a position or a Wiccan or a druid or anyone like. Your view is that whatever people believe about the supernatural, that the same method would work if they only knew the facts and used reason, they would come to your conclusions. Yes, ultimately, okay, got it, thank you.
Now it might take some leg work and it might be a little round about because there's what I'm getting at is that there's a difference between kind of arguing about mundane empirical things, which is what the domain of science is, versus how you go about arguing for preconditions of knowledge or world viewser paradigms as a whole. So it's a different type of argument, and different types of things are proven in different ways. So, for example, how
do I know that logic works? Well, that's a metalogical question. It goes outside of the balance of the normal questions of you know, regular logical questions. How do I know that we have knowledge? Right, that's a pistemological question, but it's a pistological question that raises the bar one level. So it's a meta epistemological question. Right, what is knowledge? How do we know that we have knowledge? Can we
have knowledge? Right? So when you start to ask those types of questions, it raises the bar and it takes the type of proof out of the domain of the empirical sense data. So we're actually now arguing about a higher level of abstraction than does water boil it hundred degrees? Can I study, you know, flies in the congo, et cetera.
Yeah, I think that, And again, just interrupt me or throw me away with if you want to get to anic speaker. I don't want to hug the mic. But the difference, it seems to me is, or I may be struggle to understand your point, is that in science when you use that method or what I consider be that method, although you would say it's the same as faith, but what I think of as science causes convergence, you know, like like Galilean relative.
Now, I think, but you're missing the point about what I'm talking about by raising the bar or asking more fundamental questions about science itself. So what I'm arguing is not whether your conclusions within the earthworm studies are tru or false. I don't doubt that you can come to various consensuses and dispute with the other colleagues in the
lab about the earthworm. What I'm saying is that science itself presupposes things that science can't prove, and that means that you're resting on things that you haven't thought about or don't And I'm not saying you personally, but I'm saying that the people who do science, typically, for example,
have not studied philosophy of science. So what I'm talking about is what you'll if you take a philosophy of science class, they'll start you'll start asking all these kinds of questions, and you'll read a bunch of essays by people who've asked, what is science, how do we do science? What does science presupposed? How is the method of science reliable? How do we know it's reliable? These are all philosophy of science. Cyah, But those are very important.
But the proof is in the pudding, right like those presuppositions must.
Know this is why that doesn't work. That's that's a false argument for justification. So to argue that because something works doesn't tell me that it's justified in doing it, or that that that doesn't count as episodic justification because I can conceivably make anything quote work depending upon what
I'm getting trying to get it to do. Right, So just because something quote works is missing the point about well, how do you know that the science itself is true or that scientific the specific method it is true because the method is never under the purview of the microscope or science itself.
Yeah, but like nuclear reactors will always work even if they're based off.
You're missing the point. You can't make that claim logically.
I can't claim that nuclear reactors work.
You said always, which is a universal claim. So in logic that's called universal quantifier. Anytime you say that, if you're an empirical science based person, you've shot yourself in the foot because it's an unjustified claim. You can't demonstrate empirically that this event will always in the future operate that way. It's an assumption, and I think it's a
good assumption, but it cannot logically be demonstrated. So you see right there, science is resting on logical assumptions that it can't justify.
Yeah, but if you abandon logical assumptions, you end up with religion, right, your proliferation of different beliefs that not reconized you're missing.
That's so I say. My argument is that it's not abandoning logic for religion. Revelation is the foundation for logic.
But why does it lead to log Why does revelation lead to different outcomes for different people in different countries and different historical periods, is what I'm asking.
Well, that would just be a fallacy. The fact that people have varying religious beliefs doesn't mean that the religion is.
That has nothing to do with whether religon you're saying they're doing it.
Well, when you say the same thing about a person in science it came to.
False conclusions, Yeah, I would, so that has.
Nothing to do with whether their position is true false.
What I'm saying is why does revelation lead to different conclusions? And it's a good faith question, like in terms of are you saying that they're doing it the wrong way or is it the wrong revelation or do they listen to the wrong guy.
I could ask you the same question as to why the scientific method would lead people to.
Different conclusions because the evidence reason.
Or people learning wrong they're doing that, there's a lot or people are not good scientists, or they don't follow the method or they're paid off or they're getting grant money, and they just want to fudge the evage.
You're saying people don't follow the religious or faith slash reason method correctly.
I'm saying that should be obvious to you that because there's differentiation in religious claims has nothing to do with which position is true or false. It's a foul.
Do you think a person can have a genuine, sincere faith that is incorrect?
Yeah, people can sincerely believe wrong things.
Sure, okay, got it, thank you.
I thought we could keep going. But whatever, Josh father deacon, would you like to comment on that as a person from the domain of the philosophy of science? Yeah, dang one, it was.
I cannot happen. I just happened to come across the talk and I and the that guy earlier make lying wrong again or something like that that guy earlier, but I think he kind of missed.
A few minutes.
I'm going into play bluegrass.
But yeah, is it any comments on the philosophy of science in regard to what made lying wrong? With saying?
Well, no, yeah, I shut this guy up for a second. So, because I only have a few minutes, forgive me for being rude but impatient. But yeah, what I would say too is that you got a lot of good points there. Again, science isn't a worse shape than that, Like you'd pointed out, he was saying, well, this works, and you know this, that the proofs in the pudding, and I think you
alluded to this that. Yeah, but we can have multiple theories and multiple conclusions they all work, so they can't all be true.
That's one of the things.
And then you know, the problem with like the kind of assumption that you're that you were addressing and bringing up, is.
You talk about the underdetermination.
Of data, understanda of data.
Yeah, this was brought up.
A student came to me and was asking me, like, why don't you believe what about the fossils? And I'm like, I could reinterpret all of that theoretically into a paradigm and just redate everything. Like so it's kind of a failure to understand exactly these kinds, like you said, these philosophical questions about science, the philosophy science, but science itself never even gets to knowledge because of those kinds of problems and the problem of induction and stuff like that.
That that's visuously circular. So even to say it will work is a fallacy of induction because it assumes that the future will be like the past. So the science can't even get to that point. Now again, right, I like that you pointed out it's reasonable in one sense if we qualify what that means, because again, what science is doing is something entirely different. But as human pointed out, but if we mean by reasonable, logical or epistemic, no, like it can't actually get to that.
Exactly.
Yeah.
So anyways, that's all I wanted to add. I'm gonna go and play some music. Forgive me for interrupting the gentleman there.
But I have.
That's all good. Yeah, so make wine. If you wanted to respond to that, you can.
Yeah.
I left because I didn't want to hog the mic, and again you can always mute me. I think from a scientific person, afective, I agree with you that you you assume that the past is like the future, But I think that that's being a little bit like not charitable enough just leaving it there, because you don't just assume. You you take an educated guess and then you go test. So if the future wasn't like the past, your experiment
wouldn't work. And then if your experiment does work, it's evidence that your guess Interrectah.
We're not calling into question whether the future will be like the past. We're pointing out that from an empirical standpoint, you can't epistemically or logically justify that the future will be like the past.
That's the point, okay, But but you don't think that there's good evidence that the future is like the past.
It doesn't matter like that because the evidence will still be based on empirical sense data.
And so we'll beg the question, are you suggesting that we do something like should you pray about it? Or should you like get a revelation?
I'm suggesting that. I'm suggesting that there have to be assumed preconditions or categories for the possibility of knowledge, like logic that are not sense data dependent, that are not found in sense data, that are not reducible to matter, and therefore empiricism and materialism as worldviews are self defeating.
Let me give you another example to say all knowledge comes from sense data, as most modern science y minded people say that itself is a self refuting claim because you can't show in sense data that that proposition is true.
It's an assumption, okay, but I don't think you have to. I don't think like the worldview that you come to through science depends on your assumption. I think it depends on the universe we live in, because if you didn't live in a universe.
You're just assuming the thing in question. How do you know that? How do you know that empiricism is true?
Well, in science, I don't think you can know something for one hundred percent certainty. But if it wasn't true, You're experiments wouldn't work. But you can fail to You can test something, it can fail to be falsified, is what I'm saying.
So what you should look into is what it means to have epistemic justification because you keep appealing to the thing in question. The question that we're raising is prior to the doing of science and prior to empirical sense data. So every time you appeal to something from sense data, like doing more science or just assuming that the world works that way, it's begging the question about the philosophical question that's being asked.
So you're saying, before you do science, if you come to any conclusions, you're begging the question.
Again, because I would agree.
With You're not.
You're not justifying or giving an account for the things that you use to do science which are not found in empirical sense data and cannot be justified or found in empirical sense data. Let me give you an example again. The claim all knowledge comes from sense data is self refuting as a claim because number one, it makes a universal quantifier claim all knowledge comes from sense data. If you're an empiricist, you can't know that because you don't
have access to all experience. Secondly, the proposition it self is self refuting because the truth value of that proposition is not found in sense data, so itself does not constitute a knowledge proposition, and so it's self refuting. Do you understand?
Yeah, don't. I don't dispute that science can't answer all possible philosophical questions to everybody's satisfaction.
My question is that you're avoiding the challenge that I pose, which is that a naive empiricist worldview is itself self refuting. Do you understand what I'm saying?
Yeah, I get that.
The claim is I.
Understand that, No, it's self refuting. It's not even.
Circular, said sorry, which claim is self refuting? I'm sorry I lost you.
If you were to say all knowledge comes from sense data, that is not a circular argument. That's a contradiction, very different.
Okay, And you're saying there's another source of data where knowledge comes from.
Well, I'm partly saying that, but I'm giving an example of preconditions of knowledge that are not found in sense data. And I listed multiple examples of this. The past, the self, the mind, logic, universals, time, memory, on and on and on. None of those things are found in sense data, but they are presupposed in any act of knowledge. An act of knowledge presupposes a knower, logic, sense give me sentences, the writing, science papers presupposes meaning. None of those things
can be found in sense data. So those are categories, transcendental categories, or something's sometimes called preconditions for the possibility of knowledge. Okay, And none of those things are found in sense data. And all of those things are assumed by any doing of science. That's why it's a trends scendent.
And if we were if you had a planet with imperfect, you know, finite beings, would you expect them to know things without any assumptions or presuppositions about anything like is that what you would expect if they were just grew up in the universe and trying.
To understand that. It seems like a fallacy of irrelevance. I don't understand how that's relevant.
Why would you? I guess my question is what is the better source of data that's not sense data that everybody has access to and gets you reliable conclusions.
You're missing the point. I'm not saying that we don't learn things from sense data. I'm saying that sense data is a lower form of knowledge that assumes abstract, universal, non physical categories that have to be there to have knowledge at all. Again, it's a argument from the preconditions of knowledge. You cannot point to any molecules that make up the preconditions, but to talk at all assumes the preconditions. So it's a stronger argument from a logical standpoint.
Okay, well I'll step aside let others speak. Thank you, sure, Alex.
I'm you unmute dude. Why are you raising your hands? For the life of you cannot understand why people can't work this thing.
When I got invited in, it was behind the live stream, so I couldn't hear what you said, yeah, so I feel like there's a slight misinterpretation when people make scientific claims, when a person says something is scientifically proven to be true, because it's framed with the scientific method and science in general in that philosophical sense that no matter how true somebody says something is scientifically, it's all framed within the It could be wrong, whether the certainty levels ninety nine
point nine whatever percent or whatever, it's never one hundred percent because just inherently it has to possibly be wrong, so that way it could be also testable. And you know, you have two people, let's say they have them Usua. They wake up on an island, two separate but identical islands. One is very religious minded you the one is more scientifically minded. And the person is like, well, they're trying to figure out how the world works. And you see
that they're testing things without even realizing it. You know, I think this animal went behind this bush. Oh wait, they're not behind that bush. That means I could be wrong. That means like maybe I could be wrong about anything. And versus the person who goes and says, hey, the animal went behind the bush and they're not there anymore, and I heard a voice in my head, and therefore you know that that might be some other being that I can't access other than through my own head may exist,
and it may have controlled where the animal was. And it just seems as though there's more jump to conclusions with the religious minded person versus the more tightly knit set of assumptions that are based on this more intellectually humble I could be wrong at all times because I'm always based, I'm always using evidence that could possibly be wrong.
But what you're saying is missing the point about the things that I was orguing for in terms of preconditions or transcenital categories. The reason that the reason that those things can't be wrong in any sense is because if they're wrong, knowledge is impossible, and scientism but just another form of knowledge that is based on a jump to
conclusion because of everything they argued to that guy. What I'm arguing is that revelation is the ground for the transcendental categories, which are the ground form period.
Which so it starts from a jumped to conclusion.
No, it's not a jump. It's arguing that if you make a sentence, you're assuming transcenal categories and God is the only type of being that could ground transnal category.
But let's say you hear a voice in your head and you believe it's God. There's a jump to conclusion. There's other possibilities I'm argue that I'm arguing for.
I'm not arguing for hearing voicism, arguing for a specific historic religion, Orthodox Christianity. And it's the version of theism, which is not just one guy hearing a voice. It's an entire metal.
Take any religion, and the entire thing is going to be based on. Yeah, sure, maybe historical accounts with whatever level of accuracy there is, but in every one of those counts, just like in the scientific method, there are many other plausible, you know, possibilities, not necessarily within the whole framework of that belief system, but just anyone something that might have another explanation that we just don't know.
That's why we're going to philosophy and to the things that are preconditions for all knowledge or any possible knowledge. That's why we're going to that to exclude what you're saying right.
Here, which is, you know, both people on the island, they are starting at the same place, but what do they start how what is the base and core of how they're framing everything else.
I don't I'm not trying to be rude. I don't think you're understanding. I'm making a specific transcendental argument. The argument itself addresses and bypasses the challenge that you're giving because it's not understanding what the argument is. The argument is prior to empirical sense data claims. So can you give me an example, like between you know the two? Right? So other categories that are necessary for any possible knowledge would again be things like the external world, the self,
the mind, logic, universals, mathematics, time, et cetera. None of those things are in sense data. They're preconditions for the possibility of knowledge, and so they're prior to empirical claims.
Well, I mean like when you first start off on that island, the hypothetical island, it's already the case that yeah, of course you have to set up some kind of framework, like and if you're starting from one that says, yeah, I'm going to create this framework, but it's fallible, then that's the new difference.
You don't understand. This is not understand You're not understanding. I'm trying to I'm trying to explain it, but you're not getting it, and.
Uh, we got disconnected less then, and no, I was just asking about the first of all. Listen today's tag arguments and it's so funny they keep talking about the island and then they jumped to pre supposing metaphysics.
By the way, it's just very funny to hear. Uh, they're just talking about like women and.
He's talking about he's talking about Oh.
Okay, okay, I'm just.
Uh, just getting back to the women's thing and hold on, hold on baby, Uh, just getting back to the women thing and it clicking. What would you recommend? Because from my perspective, women are very religiously spiritually spiritually minded and uh, you know, listening to Except from Rose, he said that if you're looking for truth, you shouldn't be looking for a spiritual experience. And it feels like women really want a spiritual experience.
Yeah. I think that's a danger for women and the feminine men is to seek out these kinds of experiences and then they fall into delusion. But we're all susceptible to Maybe the women are more susceptible to those kinds of spiritual experiences.
Sid hi Ja, I just wanted to say, I don't understand why people can't get the tag argument.
Like the last two.
Guys, it's not that hard to understand. Like, I don't know, I feel like people just miss the point every single time. And there's supposed to be smart, you know, and you can like look at their Twitter, but like they just can't get a simple argument.
You know.
I think a lot of people when they hear the terms that I mentioned, and I try to use not a lot of terminological, baggage laden terms. If I can't, sometimes it's unavoidable. But I think a lot of times when people hear those terms or words, they don't think they have any reference or they don't know what that is.
You know.
A lot of times they say word solid when it's just like common philosophical terms. So you know, in those cases, you're just talking about people that are just simply uneducated. But most of the time, if people want a debate, you know, there's a lot of arrogance and people think they know what they're talking about. So yeah, at a lot of factors here arrogance, ignorance, pride, et cetera.
Mars chalk and the chat hah fueling this whole debate for like forty hours. Yeah, it's been great question on the clothing of Adam and Eves. What's the significance for the Orthodox Is? I know, back in my Protestant days, I used to point the PSA well as as a proof for PSA, the whole murdering or killing the animal Adam and Eve out of the garden. I never heard a take from Orthodox.
On that.
I don't know if you ever heard of or or have one.
I don't know why it would prove ps A. I mean, it's essentially the skins are there's there's a sacrificial element there. But I don't know how that would prove p s A because PSA teaches that the Father damns the sun. So I don't know what that I have to do with God clothing us in the flesh biological bodies that we have. Yeah, no, all right, that's cool. Well, how does it connect to ps A? I don't understand that leap. Well.
I always remembered the the idea that Christ for them.
Yeah, no I have.
I haven't thought about this in a while from a Protestant perspective. I always remember bringing it up.
That's all right, I mean I think that. I mean the skins there are a reference to our bodies, to our flesh. Right. Oh, I know what you're thinking. You're thinking that the animal. I know what you're thinking. I remember now because I remember thinking this as a Protestant too. Now it's been a long time, but so yeah, So the Protestant thinks that God clothed them with the skin.
Uh.
And the Orthodox interpretation, like if you read pinotas Nellsi's book Gification in Christ, it's not like a leather coat, it's the actual skins that we have. So it's linking us to the animal. It's our animal nature, our biological animal nature that's being referenced in that text. Is not a leather coat.
Uh.
But yes, I understand now, I forgot that. Yeah. Protestants use that as an example of like ps a like Adam and Eve or naked. They're in sin, and so God kills an animal and then closes them with the leather straps and bikinis so that they can be righteous in God's sight. But the Orthodox interpretation is that the skins that God made for them is our actual skin. So we were stricually naked. God clothed us with flesh bodies because they were now mortald. They'd been banished from paradise.
They're now mortal because you notice they had bodies prior to that, right, But now we are given these, as Paul says, lowly bodies in anticipation of the resurrected, glorified body. Anybody else we got still three hundred dollars for under people in here? Any other questions, comments, disagreements, debates, topics. We actually got a lot more high quality people towards the end here, Crusade. Where'd you go?
Man?
You dropped off Crusade? You want to come back?
Hey?
Jay, can you hear me? Go ahead?
Hey, I was just listening to Alex and the Make Line guy, And what do you think about them? Listening to the Bons and Stein debate. It seems like in about two hours he uh summarizes your arguments just in a phenomenal way and ask them to account for the laws of logic in a materialistic worldview.
Yeah, absolutely everybody should listen to the Box and Stein debate. And but who are you talking about? Alex who? Alex Jones or no, Alex the guy the.
He just came on just after the make Lion Guy and the Island.
I don't know if he's still in there. I think he left anyway it but yeah, everybody can check out the Box and Stein debate. I also did a talk on the Box and Stein debate. If people are interested, if they want to go hear that anybody else. If not, we'll call it call it an evening. I guess last chances Gypsy got sorry about that?
Can you hear me?
Hey, it's a quick question.
I was reading a story regarding Saint Athanasius and that his teacher may have been Alexander of Alexandria had chastised him as a young boy and his friends for playing pretend baptisms, and he said the reason why was that those baptisms were truly valid.
Is that something of the Orthodox Church accepts. I've never heard this story, but no, I don't think anybody would accept the pretend baptisms are well.
The reason I'm asking is not because of that particular instance, but like the idea that you know, a Protestant or a Catholic or any other kind of heterodox Christian could perform a valid baptism. And why I'm asking is we wouldn't accept heterodox any other heterodox sacrament, but we do accept baptisms as long as the trinitarian So I wonder why that is.
Well, sometimes but not always. So there's a lot of canonical strictures and precedents and procedures for when it's supposed to be accepted or not accepted. So, for example, there's canons in the sixth Council to talk about not accepting you know, mean baptism even if it's done with the right names. So it really is supposed to ultimately be kind of a case by case basis. So that's what I would say. Okay, well that's all I got, thanks man.
Well, and I just joined it real quick. Something on that that I noticed people don't understand is that grace is not one thing like you go and you buy you buy a tie, and it's like, okay, buy this one tie. God's uncreated grace is not just one thing. There's all types of grace that is that are offered in different ways.
So there's a lot of.
Nuance there, you know. But it's not it's not just oh, we accept baptisms so they are the church.
It's like, well, there's a whole lot.
Of nuance there with how what grace is in different types of grace?
Yeah, absolutely, and also if I mean even sant Augustine pointed out that even though the baptisms outside the church might be valid, if the person persists in heresy, the grace doesn't. There's an impediment to the grace. So the impediment is not removed until they profess Orthodoxy. So, uh, dick or sith, what's up?
Hello?
Yeah?
Hey, So I'm an inquirer, but I was watching a debate recently between god logic. I think his name is a Orthodox Muslim, but basically Orthodox Muslim was like pressing him on John twenty, verse seventeen, and the god Logic's response was that, like, because Jesus became flesh, that then he can have a God. But like, isn't that like an historian like way to think about it.
No, Jesus is the second person of the Godhead and always refers to the Father as his God and our God, your Father and my Father. This is why the Orthodox Church teaches what's called monarchical trinitarianism, that the one God is the person of the Father.
So Jesus.
So the Father isn't Jesus's God outside of the incarnation or.
No, he's eternally the God of Christ from all e t because the Christ is the son of the Father.
Okay.
But like when he's saying that, like okay, well, like my Father and your Father, my God and your God, Like that's still accurate in the sense that like like that is from eternity.
He's his God, right or like.
Absolutely, yeah, it's an eternal generating of the Son, So he's eternally.
Yeah, But the reasoning that, like he's only his God in the sense of just becoming flesh, like that's not correct, right.
No, that's not true because again monarchical trinitarianism, as is confessed in the Creed and in the Book of James and in Paul's letters for us, there is one God, the Father Almighty. All good gifts come down from the Father of lights. So it is from all eternity that the one God is the person of the Father.
I see.
It's called monarchical Trinitarians.
That kind of leads into like my second just kind of question just like regarding like just you know, the Trinity.
Uh so if.
How do I say this?
Okay, so if Christ, like you know, he pre exists, like creation and a creation exilo and like like let's say, like I accept the deity of Christ, right, Like where like where does that logically follow from that that they are that the Son and the Father are like the same being?
Right?
Because I know in an article trinity, like you know the Father, like you make the analogy between a king and the prince. But the king and the prince like they have the same nature, but they're still different beings, like they're.
You know what I mean? Well, the difference is that, right? So the difference is that amongst humans who are created, we are distinct, discrete beings, and God is and the Father and the Son are not discreet. They endwell one another in terms of peracusis, and they share the same nature. So there's a mystical unity amongst the members of the Trinity,
which human beings don't possess except in the Church. And that's why in the High Priestly of Christ and John fourteen fifteen, sixteen seventeen, he says, you will be one as I and the Father are one. So that and that goes beyond just a moral joining with Christ. It's also intending to signify a shared energy or glory that we partake of, So it has to be not just a unity of nature, but also it refers to the paraphoresis or the divine in dwelling.
Okay, so I get that, but like, like what is there any scripture or anything like that could help me understand, Like why would Jesus just not be Like why could I not just think of Jesus like a second God, Like not that he doesn't have the same nature, but like if I assume, like, okay, the Father and the Son they have the same nature, but because there's that distinction, like why wouldn't they just be like to God, Like why wouldn't there just be two gods or three gods?
With the poor spirit?
Well, because the word God can pick out different things, and it's usually been used to pick out the person of the Father. So if you're referring to the whole trinity, then God is the trinity. If you're referring to the divine nature, there is one divine nature, right, and that's the divinity expressed in in God, the Father and the Trinity. If you're referring to one God because of the in dwelling, there's one God because they all through the persons and
dwell one another perfectly. So the word God can also pick out the divine energies. So the mistake is I think in thinking that God has a single reference, and that's usually the way, like Mormons are Muslims argue.
Okay, so you would so you would say it doesn't violate the laws laws of identity because based pretty much like the main like the like the main person of God is the Father, like the Son and the Spirit like they're because they come from the Father, like, it's still one God.
Basically, that's what you're trying to say, correct, And they recapitulate in the Father, as the Cappadocians say. So the movement in the trinity of the energies also shows the unity of God because every movement is from the Father, through the Sun and in the Spirit, and so it's a never ending circle. As Basil says, So there's one God because there's one energy and one action, and that one energy one action is also multiple at the same
thought at the same time. So for a lot of Orthodoxiology it's a both and but if you look off the word monotheism and I actually put this on my wall today because uh croc believe or not actually got it right. And the word monotheism is actually a sixteen sixties era term. It doesn't even exist until the sixteen sixties. And so when the Capadocians are when anybody in the scripture is right, we believe in one God, the Father Almighty. So like the Creed says, right, I believe one God,
the Father. And then it says God from God, Light from Light. Well, in the Creed that's just picking out the word God. There is picking out the hypostasis, right, So God from God means hypostasis from hypostasis, it's not referring to different natures or two different divine natures.
Okay, yeah, I guess that's all for now, Thanks bro.
Yeah, but if you read John fourteen to seventeen, I mean, that would probably be one of the best places to see this, the nature of this union and distinction within maternity. Dick, what's up?
Hey, what's up? Can you hear me?
Yes, sir, hey, this kind of ties into the Catholic thing, But and it ties into the the Ira thing that we were talking about, or you were talking about a couple of days ago. But I was reading recently The Perfect Holocaust and who kept it perfect?
By Chris Fogerty. And have you heard of that book.
I've not heard of it.
Okay, well it's essentially.
The the leading up to the Potato Family, which is
really an attempt at Holocaust. But yeah, yeah, But anyway, it was interesting because, uh, he doesn't put the dots together, but he kind of talks about how, you know, the William the Conquer, will was it William the Conquer, William the bastard, the Norman who took over England, and then of course, you know, the Normans tried to take over Ireland afterwards, and you know, maybe two hundred years afterwards, and then the first and I think the only British pope,
Pope Adrian, was the one that sent the Normans in the English into Ireland to from our perspective, which I think is obviously the right perspective forcibly convert or make the Irish submit to the pope. But anyway, he gives in the first like in the first chapter, it's about sixty eight pages. I think like that like probably at least six instances of where the Catholic Church going all the way up to the pope excommunicates groups of Irish that rise up against the.
English too, that are wow, I don't know this.
Yeah, so they they excommunicate the Irish that rise up against the English that are well first they rise up.
He doesn't state this explicitly, I kind of it's implied if you kind of know the history between the East and West that you know, Ox to Catholic and then you know, you're talking about how the northern uh, northern Ireland right now, even back in you know, as early as the sixteen hundreds were Protestant, and of course they the English used Protestantism too as a geopolitical tool to subject the Irish well in the same way they use Catholicism to subject.
The Irish under the pope.
And it's interesting, well I read it because I'm Irish, you know, part Irish, and it's interesting because they use the same tactics to convert them to Catholic, the Roman Catholic the way.
So this is this is great. So prior to the Reformation, the English have been conquered by the Normans. We're using papal fourth to enslave the Irish to the papacy. And then when the Protestant Reformation happens, when England becomes Protestant they use the exact same divide and conquer model by Northern Ireland being very very similar.
And as a matter of fact, they used forced tithing on the Irish for the Protestant Church, so they would have to tie first to the Protestant Church and then and then to the Catholic Church. And on top of that, the Catholic Church would excommunicate rebellions, people rebelling against the against the English crown trying to subject them. But that's all in the first sixty sixty pages. It's worth a read.
And then you know, of course, the main focus of the book is on the Irish Holocaust, which, yeah, the potato famine, which in what's that it's called the perfect Holocaust and who kept it perfect? And it's by Chris Fogerty, and most of it, like i'd say about half of it is primary sources.
And like how.
The English would during this is specifically during the Holocaust, they had you know, the Irish, you know, the main means line history, I guess, is that all the Irish were just you know, rubes and they only grew potatoes, which is absurd, you know, which is kind of absurd because you know, it's the Emerald Isle and they've always been known to have the best you know, dairy and and stuff in butter, and you know that's like where carry gold butter is like world you know, renown and butter.
And stuff like that.
But yeah, yeah, and it's you know, it's great. And but they talk about how they had legitimate like food stores all over Ireland and they wouldn't give it to the Irish people who were growing it, and they were using for exportation, you know, because of you know, the English imperium.
Yeah, I remember Tim Kelly used to talk about them.
Yeah.
But anyway, like I said, it's not explicit in there. He doesn't say it explicitly, but if you look at it from an East West like Orthodox Catholic perspective and the Great Schism, it's pretty obvious what was happening before even the the Reformation.
How many people It's hard to.
Say, but his estimates go anywhere.
So the total population of Ireland before the Holocaust or famine, whatever you want to call it, was about twelve million, and then.
After it was about five to six million. And that's not.
All that's not all death, you know, because there was a huge amount of displacement. You know, obviously there's a huge migration to America. And also they would not just kill people, but they would enslave them and you know, send them to the to the Caribbean islands, where they would essentially die because they're in Ireland and there's no sun in Ireland. Then they go to Caribbean and they die.
But yeah, so it's the the records from his book, are they vary, but it's it was about half the population of the entire.
Island.
Yeah, the British or.
Yeah, and you know, of course there's Goes, who's the his name's escaping me right now. But one of the main he conspired to assassinate the king in the sixteen or seventeen.
Hundreds killed the butcher.
I can't remember. No, he was in he was in England.
He's a no.
I can't remember his name. I want to say Cornwalls, but that's not it. I can't remember his name. He's a huge I can't remember his name. He wasn't the only one, but there were other characters that took Jewish money to continue the the persecution of the of the Irish.
Anyway, I just thought you might find that interesting.
Yeah, but get that book I got, and I think he's still alive. And he actually autographed my book with the book when I ordered it from him, so it's pretty cool.
Yeah.
Anyway, thanks ma'am.
Yeah, thanks Sick. Those are great points, Crusade.
What's up, g Yeah, first of all, I want to say sorry first if my English is bad, so I will kind of watch your debate about Jainism. So my question is, uh, do you think Christians will support Israel on the war in Gaza?
What I didn't understanding that.
Do you think Christians support Israel in the war between.
Christian I think a Christian would probably support the minority Orthodox in the Palestinian era, they wouldn't support necessarily either one. We don't like a Moss and we wouldn't like uh anti Christian Judaism. Pastor Kevin, Pastor Kevin, you get unmute.
I can feel it.
I can feel he's going to uh, he's gonna lay something down for us now. I can feel my my my knees are shaking in anticipation of the great words.
He will fail. Pastor Kevin, your seven day Adventist. Unmute?
All right, he's knocking on mute my choice guy, Ma Troyce.
What's up?
Good evening, Jay, can you hear me?
Hey?
Yeah, yeah, good, good to speak to speak to you again. We've met in person before, but yeah, I just wanted to ask you, uh what, how how should Christians view uh political uh the political world from a theological perspective, because you know, something like Byzantine symphonia is not it's not really uh realistic.
Uh well, I mean that's up to you what your gifts and calling are or whether you want to be involved in local politics. And you know, I think one of the elders or saints recently said, do you support the candidates that are the best possible for Christianity? Mo?
And I'm just a Puerto Rican young man. I gotta question it. So like, so you're you're Christian. I just got a question like, so, like how like how should
I feel if I'm like Lukewarm? Because I know Hebrews that talks about you know, you know the truth, you know what's up in the spirit, you know how everything's go down, like you know, spiritual warfare, you know this and that, and but you still choose to any way rebel and you know, I know the Bible talk about rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft or something like you around more or less of that, and so I just be I feel like I'm too guilty to.
Turn back.
It's like, dang, God, like you're looking at me and I'm just a pig play in the mud, and I'm just I know what I'm doing is wrong, but I'm still doing it. And I just feel like disc like disgusting, like filthy, like, well, what we.
All feel that way? So I would say, look, you know we're all gonna feel that way. That's actually a good thing. So I would say, begin to look in the Orthodox Christianity. David, what's up? David? Da v'd with an E. I don't understand why all these people come on here and they don't unmute. What's what? Why are they doing it? What's the point? Kyoma? I'm you Chioma? Are you do you want a Hey?
It's morning over here, so good morning?
Mean, hey, what's on your mind?
I'm not sure what the topic is. You guys are just saying random stuffs. Guys talking about war and what what what you're talking about?
Uh, it's a debate topic. So anything that related to atheism Catholicism is long liberalism, all the things listed up there.
Oh, well, question, can I ask the question?
Uh? Huh?
Are you are you a Christian.
Orthodox? Yes?
Wow, that's.
I kind of thought you an atheist?
Okay, well, uh, maybe I need to do better than x DMA. What's up?
Can you hear me? I have an opinion. I think all the religions it's kind of bullshit. It's made to make people like, it's made for controlling people, and like, I think it's bad. You know, it's like a cult, all the religions, And I think people should be good people. And it's not a religion that makes you good, it's you.
Okay, how do we know? How do we know what the good is?
Well, don't hurt others, like every.
Why is that the good? Why is that the good? How do we know that?
Because you don't want it to happen to you? Do you want to get hurt?
Well, but that doesn't that doesn't mean that it's the good because I don't want that. There's a lot of things that I don't want, But that doesn't make it the case. So how do we know that that is the case?
How does that make sense that? Like obviously it's not good.
Well, just saying that it's obvious doesn't show me that that's the case. That's just sort of restating what you said. But I want to know how you know.
That, Like how I know getting hurt is bad? Like what do you mean? Of course it's bad, like nobody wants to do.
Now, you said to be good to people, which that doesn't even tell us how we are good to people or what the content of that is. And I'm asking you what is the good?
Well, help people in need?
Okay, how do you know that that's what the good is? Is it universal?
Yeah?
Everybody needs help from everybody. We're social beings.
Right, Okay, but you're a limited, finite being. How do you know something that's universally the case?
Because that's in our nature?
How do you know that? I mean, you're just asserting.
All these like scientifically proven like people there's.
Yeah, you think it's scientifically pre even that the good is in our nature? That doesn't make sense.
No, but it's in our nature to be social beings.
And okay, but a lot of social beings are quote bad, So how does that tell me.
What the good is?
What social beings are?
Bad? People? Engaged in warfare, rape, murder, theft.
So that's pretty that's obviously bad. Why Well, because it's like all the things that happened to other people, Like those things that happened to other people, the other people had negative feelings or anerthings.
So that's begging the question, why is it. Maybe I get a lot of pleasure out of hurting people, So why is it wrong to do that?
It's wrong for the other person? Why because it's hurting them.
That's a circle. So now you're back to the first claim. So circular arguments are good.
No, it's just makes sense like why would why would you?
Even?
So that's another saying. Okay, so so you understanding of the debate. If you come to debate and you can just assert things and they can be circles, I can do that too, So god just is yeah, I mean, so that's why, that's why what you're arguing is not a good argument. Slow, Slow, I'm still sick of saying on you a J.
A J on M.
You can't connect Dick again, Dick, you got on here?
Dick?
Do you want to talk to get it on? You can y'all not hear me or something?
I I can hear you? I don't know if you can hear me.
I can hear you?
Oh yeah, your dreams.
I didn't request to speak.
That was just a fate speaker.
So here's the second thing that I wanted to say. So, yeah, so I don't know. I'm not good at the base.
Can I ask you a question?
Real quick?
No? Wait?
Manswer?
Can I ask you a question?
Uh?
Never mind, I'm bringing it back. I'm bringing it back.
Can I ask you a question?
Xde answered?
Can I can I like talk?
I don't.
I don't get what I'm like getting to be a listener speaker.
Okay.
What I wanted to ask is what do you believe religion is? Like God or whatever? That's real?
Because it just is. So I'm gonna use the same arguments you did, okay, I mean.
Sure, what okay?
Because without without God, you're not going to be able to justify your ability to make a sentence and a truth claim like you're trying to do right now.
But do you believe that's not nature?
What is nature? There's there's a what's a what is this human nature you appealed to before?
Is it?
No?
No?
No?
I mean nature in general, like the laws of physics, trees grow, weat food, the circle.
All those imags things, those immaterial not physical laws.
No, no, you're you're wrong, You're wrong, Chase. The circle of life is mentioned in the Lion King.
If you said, oh, this is the logical principle of a savena right?
So wait's okay, so you everything that you're saying, like the lan King, it's all books written by other people. Everything, all the religion things, all the books are written by other people, not by God. So how do how, how do how does anybody know what God is if they've never seen it?
You mean, like all the science papers.
That are I mean, your whole are your whole assertion? I heard it from you, and you're just another person. Yeah yeah, so why should.
I listen to you?
You're just another person?
Bro?
What do you mean?
Well, okay, you're saying, so here's you keep presenting these principles like oh, the laws of physics and stuff like this, and nature and something called nature which is a universal which is a big claim. And then you're appealing to or sorry, trying to critique that the Bible and everything was transmitted through other people. But you're another person trying to proposit a truth claim. You don't see that that's contradictory.
He does not.
Okay, that's pretty based.
Yes, I have questions for mister Chase Haggard. Your brother Tristan is Antichrist?
No he's not.
That's a vicious rumor. That's a vicious rumor started by Beyonce.
Man.
It was I want to say, this has been a very very good night, Jay. I have never heard you this polite before. Oh really, Yeah, I just want to get some feedback. I just it was so hilarious. No, the woman, the Mormon woman who said that there's more Mormons than their Muslims.
Yeah, ridiculous. That so funny. I can't wait to clip what she was saying.
Where do you find these psychotic people who come in with such like extreme confidence and just spelled the most insane.
That they're all? They all comment on Twitter.
I actually I'm a I'm a federal agent that gets a lot of us AID funding and so I just pay them to come in.
Yeah.
Well, well, and you know me, I'm always coming in talking about Islam, And I just wanted to first ask a question, you know how, like I don't know if you know this but like Sonny, Islam holds to both predestination and free will, and that has to be a contradiction, right.
Yeah, especially if you're an occasionalist.
Yeah.
Yeah, it's like it's like, you know, you, as a philosopher and a logician, that is a hard contradiction, right, There is no way you can reconcile that, right.
Yeah.
I think again, the main problem would be that as most of the sunies are occasional was then if God is the direct cause of every single event at every single second, and he's you know, starting the world over at every second, then when you say that you have free will, that really means absolutely nothing if occasionalism is true, because occasionalism has to mean excuse, mean, free will has to mean that you have causal agency, that you can
be a secondary cause. But the whole point of occasionalism is to not have secondary causes, and so free will would just really mean nothing. Yeah.
Absolutely, And.
Also I mean if Allah is the greatest of deceivers too. But there was a really good philosophy paper that was written a while back, and the paper was arguing that if you admit this, then you couldn't actually know that Allah isn't deceiving you into believing.
As Yeah, so it's kind of like the Calvinist evanescent grace, so the college, right, yeah, because like what the whole thing was, like the Muslim predestination.
The nation.
There's talk about like predestination in Calvinism and in Christianity, but it really means something else than in Islam, because like in Islam, it's like a total fatalism, referring to every single action and decision you make. Exactly what I think, like Christian predestination is just like the whole thing with like faith and salvation and refers to just to the like Selvathic moment, right.
And and the and divine foreknowledge. Yes, did you want to come back make line?
My first question is in the comment someone was saying that you're in the bathtub.
Is that true?
It is correct? You hear that. That's really funny.
My other question was do you do you think is it your view that God intervenes and and manipulates matter every now and then when he or she you know, causes a miracle to happen, or does God leave things to occur according to the laws of physics?
I mean, I would say that the laws of physics and you know, the celestial planets and spheres or whatever like, all of that is the logical structure that God has put into place in the cosmos. But that God is not a deistic deity as if he's removed. He's we believe in the divine imminence as well as divine transcendence, so he is present in the world, and also that he transcends the world. And we would not say God
is a she. God is who's revealed in the Orthodox Christian Church as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Okay, so are there is there such a thing as a miracle in your view? Or is it more like, well, if you could learn enough, you would discover the natural explanation. But that explanation itself.
Was I think Jesus. Jesus turned water to paine, and that was a different way of doing the normal logical structures that he had put into place in the natural world. He, in that instance, Than's demonstrating his superiority over the laws of nature, did a murder.
And when God, if God does something like converts water into wine or something like that, does the energy required or the change of momentum required to do that is that subtracted from God? Or is God like an infinite reservoir of energy and momentum and mass and so on.
God does not have mass because God is uncreated. In mass would apply to anything that is created or in time and space or spatially extended. And since God is an immaterial, non spatial, perfect spiritual being, he doesn't have bodily extension or space from all eternity.
So is there is it a suspension of the laws of chemistry and physics when when someone of that happens, or is.
It just a it's God doing something different than the way that he allowed the normal laws to go. So in other words, we would say God is the basis for or the patterns of providence in nature already, and so that's just him doing it a different way.
So if there's if the laws of physics are like traffic, God is like a traffic cop that can just kind of stop it when he wants and then let it continue.
The conversation from before is the same misunderstanding the conversation. Now, the laws of physics are themselves divine laws grounded in the divine mind, which make nature and regularity in nature possible and so when God does a miracle, technically speaking, you could say it's him doing something in a different way than he did before.
Okay, got it, Thank you.
Anybody else, I don't see any other comments, discussions, topics, questions, issues. Looks like we're winding down a lot of long's a lot of fun discussions today. It's a lot of fun.
If you.
Want to check out the earlier chat, it was it was pretty wild. Otherwise, everybody, have a good night, and thank you for tuning in and for having fun. Check out chalk dot com. Use it from a code J forty to get forty percent off j Y forare zero at c h o Q chalk dot com.