Questions Atheists Can't Answer: Jay Dyer & JimBob!

It it it it it it it it it it.

H m hm.

Hm m hm hm h m hm hm h m hm hm mm hmmm h m hmm.

I I I I, oh.

What do you wait?

Wait?

Wait do wit what? What's going on? What's going on? What's up? Shout out h tur about what's going on? Both and Philip Jessica, we'll get the rip in the house. All right, are you guys ready. I wasn't gonna do a stream today because I had planned to take my kids to like go kart racing and all stuff, and it turns out it's the only day it's closed.

A god A.

God a So instead, let's do a stream now. I tried to plan this with Jay because I did want to do this stream, but he's a busy dude, and today opened up. I was going to do a Thursday. But you know, maybe in the future we'll take a couple of these questions and we'll do another stream with Jay, maybe even add in other questions that atheists can't answer. So we're gonna look at that. But of course, first before that, we have to look at another terrible argument

Premis one.

A necessary being is something that exists by its own nature, is not dependent on anything else, exists in all possible worlds, and provides a complete and sufficient explanation for the universe. The universal quantum field is the necessary being because it exists by its own nature, is not dependent on anything else, It exists in all possible worlds, and provides a complete and sufficient explanation for the universe invoking unnecessary metaphysical speculation.

Metaphysical speculation. Can you tell me how the quantum field accounts for everything in the universe if the universe includes metaphysics rot Row Becky, Oh, Breakfast Tacos, Oh, Breakfast Tacos. Okay, the universal quantum field is the necessary being. It's non dependent. I'm sorry, Breakfast Tacos. I know you won't answer these questions in a one on one, so I'll just do it and pretend I'm having a good faith conversation with you.

That primis three.

Any proposed necessary being that does not provide a complete explanation for the universe is incoherent.

Primis conclusion your necessary being being. The universal quantum field is an incoherent because it's a proposed necessary being and it doesn't provide a complete explanation of truth, knowledge, metaphysics. Okay, doesn't provide an explanation for let's say, if morality exists. Now, I don't know under this argument whether he's included including such things as morality, something that's immoral, evil, good? Does it account for the good? Is a good an actual thing?

Is it?

Is it good something you appeal to? How does it account for the laws of thought that are conceptual and not identical to the universal quantum field. Hmm, it's incoherent. Throw your arguments in the dumpster, light them on fire, and eat another sandwich.

As far, any proposed necessary being that overlaps with the universal quantum field old explanation without adding anything new is redundant. Conclusion. Therefore, all proposed necessary beings other than the universal quantum field or false because they are either incoherent or redundant. Just one.

That's That's pretty much the end of his argument. Why because he would argue that anything any other proposed necessary being in this case the Christian God, doesn't add anything. If it adds anything additional, then it's false. And if it's doesn't add anything additional, then it's redundant. Well, no, you have a problem of intentionality here. So if the universe is unintentional and completely accidental and random, that's that doesn't give an account for the universe that we see today.

Is bad.

Now, I guess mathematically you can do like theoretical geometry and like imagine some sort of crazy plane that's the thinnest thing ever and it itself is like the shape of a square or a circle or whatever you want from the top view. But then from the side view it's completely flat. But even that would have some sort of height dimension to the side, like the ridge, you know what I mean, like the like the it would have something some other angle to it. So no, flat can't be a shape.

You know.

Joseph says, I'm not an atheist, but I think it would be pretty easy to debate. Debate what at the end of the day, you grant just about anything, and your point really wouldn't be refuted. I'm not sure exactly what you're Can your God change? No, the nature of God doesn't change as soon as God changes. They introduced time. No, God doesn't change. No, the creation of time, the temporal state state uh that we exist in from a Christian view,

It's rough.

They got a long they got a long way to go, but they're here. But they're here, okay, So okay, so we got that under the belt. Breakfast taco is another failed argument. You failed, You keep failing. I look at your arguments and I think no as to how easily they're refuted. And it's easy. It is easy. It's like getting on a bike, just like jumping on a bike, doing a little lap around the up around the neighborhood, you know, kicking over a person and a scooter naked

Her menuetics.

No over on this channel. We forever use her menuetics, because that's what Owen Benjamin said. He didn't know in a debate about Christianity and scripture. He didn't know what her hermaneutics was, so he said her menuetics. He said her menuetics. So it's forever her menus and not hermoneutics, her menu etics. All right, let's move over to this Okay, Popular Channel, a couple of crumpet tea drinkers, Alex O'Connor, one of the most famous young atheists, and this other

I think.

It's gonna be sort of aious, facetious response.

So the first question is I thought about this, why is there something rather than nothing? I was thinking about this yesterday and it's a you know, a question. It's a natural question to come up to a rise. It's something we think of when we're like thirteen. We look up at the stars in the first there's this moment, the first time a philosophical a jarring question hits us

What is that?

Yes, what are we doing? What are we doing?

Why?

Space so big?

So?

Why is there something rather than nothing? Why? I thought about this? And let's say you came to some strange naturalistic conclusion of why there's something instead of something rather than nothing? Something rather than nothing? Well, not that the naturalists could answer that, because it's endless regress. You'd always be going back in time to more matter like breakfast tacos?

This is still something that for instance, like David Hume addresses, which I think is an interesting spect for the very least worth considering, is that he suggests that questions like

If Megan wasn't a good enough reason to never do a sort of clean face mustache, if that wasn't a good enough reason, Alex O'Connor.

Is thinks that we learn reason, even if even if he's not, you know, goes not entirely sure what the kind of metaphysical grounding of reason is. He thinks that our reasoning faculties are attuned to this reality that we live in. And so something that he brings up, which I think is very interesting, is the notion that questions like why is there something rather than nothing are in principle unanswerable.

Is his idea at least well, under his model, he's consistent, at least one of the rare consistent impirist Of course it's inconsistent. You couldn't answer it from empiricism. Now, the fact that you can't answer it from a certain standard doesn't mean it can't be answered regardless if you don't like the answer. So the statement that it can't be answered by anybody, which is what the conclusion they come to,

And it's not that he thinks that. It's not that he thinks necessarily, just that they are unverifiable, Like why is that something rather than nothing? Oh, maybe that's a gould. Maybe that's like a platonic ordering to the world that

And there we go, the tools we have to form beliefs are reduced to sense data analysis evaluation. But that's actually that's not true from the Christian view, like we accept logic and mind evaluation, and yet we don't verify mind evaluation through sense data, like we don't we assume mind to do sense data stuff. There's no sense data called the mind that we're evaluating. There's no sense data attached to the laws of logic that are identical to the laws of logic that we we empirically weigh and

You so?

Well, it's just the way it has to be. Well, no, it doesn't, because you could look at other animals and they don't have the same qualities traits status as a human being. Why is it that humans specifically in their account of the universe, Why is it that there's only one peculiar known type of being in the known universe that has the capacity that we have? Why is that, you know, they grant themselves the whole other slew of things.

Full opinions on reason aren't suited to the domain in which that question needs to be answered, which is sort of a cup pound answer.

Suppose, what does it mean that the question is right? That this is a question that atheist human.

Sits a question no one can answer. Yeah, which is which I think I think may may end up potentially becoming a bit of a theme.

Did I disagree with that whether or not someone could answer it or like come to the full veracity of the answer from just pure rationality or empiricism. It's a different question of whether that not they can answer it, And you don't like the answer. So the irony here is God done it. God done it. They always make fun of the theists. God done it is still a better answer. God done It is a better answer. It's a more coherent answer if we're using coherency alone. God

Well, because you know I and the other presupposition of the of the wise, that's something rather than nothing right you can't answer because it has this kind of like TD logical bents to it, which I think is I find really interesting.

Yeah. Yeah, he does a little look a little rough. He looks like one of the characters from uh, what was that movie where Matthew McConaughey played like an AIDS victim at a rodeo. He kind of looks like is someone who didn't make the cut, but he was prepared at the audition.

Because I think one of the presuppositional differences in almost temperament between a lot of atheists and a lot of theists is that I think that a lot of people then I think that's a lot of theistic answers appeal to this, like tediological instinct we have.

Well, no, it's not just an instinct, a teleological instinct. It's that the teleological aspect needs to be embedded in the answer. I just explained this in the beginning. When you ask a why question, why does something exist and not and not exist? Well, anything we know inductively that exists that we can bring into reality has a purpose. We even look at the natural world and we can't escape looking at it through a purposeful lens, that this

In order to find not just mechanistic explanation.

To ask why is the impulse? To ask why is there something and not nothing? Is an expression of a person that holds that is, that's pursuing a teleological position. There's no there's no way around it. The moment you ask why you're already in a teleological position, you're already You're already in it.

You're already assuming it actions and not just kind of causal explanatory theories, but reasonable ones. So you know, you know, I I if I.

With a you know, drop this rain drops and roses and whisks.

Oh no, not that, And if you drink can, then there's this new tonic, this new tonic.

Wait at the camera. Oh yes, we're not sponsored, but maybe one day.

But if I were, if I were to drop it, two ways of approaching that. One is approaching explaining that. One is to say, well, the force of gravity actor on the can and all of the muscles in my hand unclenched.

And they don't say gravity is a forest.

Dude, Okay, stop, there was a natural signal that went from my brain to the hand, and that would be a kind of a mechanistic explanation, right, poppy explanation, like quite right, always missed the l But that would be a mechanistic explanation, and whereas a teleological one one in terms of uh.

Again, when we argue against physicalists who who try to defend some purely mechanistic, you know, examination of the whole entire universe, including their own reasoning, they're assuming, again a

The rest reasons or purposes. One might say, kind of broadly construed would be that I wanted to and then I did, and those two types of explanatory hypothesis often run parallel in everyday life. Especially Boo and I think the why is there something wrong?

Is why?

This is why I can never get these guys to talk to me. I'm such a arrogant child. I cannot listen to these people without.

Going skippity poppity Boo, eat a hard boiled egg in a bowl with a tiny.

Spoon rather than nothing, you know that one, oarsions. I think that the kind of oh, well there was a bad bang or like stuff like that, or well, because you know, we have this causal story that runs towards this thing.

Okay, talking about the same thing.

Okay, let's skip. This is a large section, so let's let's uh, let's go to the next section.

Okay, the real question.

Too, Scooby de bu and it's raining out that starts with a why I'm in England. It's raining and dark and dreary out.

There's a question that atheists can't answer.

Yeah, that is that is? That is the word? Why not the letter why? Yes?

Yeah, that's oh no, that's fantastic. And again I actually think that this this ties in quite nicely to talking about before about brilliant we do have this kind of crying out for teleology in our why questions because that there there are two like why is wonderfully ambiguous as a question in everyday life when we ask why, we often have Yeah, we have. We we mean it in two ways. What's caused this to be the case and what is the reason this is the case?

Yeah, you can't separate the two. What causes it to be the case cannot be separated from the future reason to be the case. You can never separate it. It's never separated. But the atheist view, it is separated. It's not it's irrelevant. It's irrelevant. I'm bearable. I can't even do it myself, or you know, it's the hardest accent.

This is interesting. Richard Bolty kind of offhandedly almost define this distinction between reasonable and causal explanatory hypotheses. And I think it's really touch to the point right now, you.

Can't do that from atheism. Why is he assuming that from an atheistic view, which is ultimately reduced to mechanisms. Why would he think that there's this separation between a causal mechanism and a reasonable explanation, a causal explanation and a reason well no, you can't have that, you know why, because under the atheistic view, your reason is caused, Your

In certainly in materialist atheism, and that there is no materialist atheism, which is again it's so fascinating topic, but it's I think it's about to say that most atheists are coming up coming at it from a materialist standpoint, right, Yeah, that that that you you eliminate teleology, You eliminate reasoning.

Forget teleology, dude, you eliminate reasoning and truth and evaluation. You eliminate it if you're coming at it from an atheist perspective, and that reduces to physicalism naturalism. Everything you're doing, all the things you're saying, is all just downstream from that initial cause Domino's turtles stuff all the way down.

You don't have, you know, arguably, you don't have purpose trumpet and rice pudding reasons in this sense of why is the.

Hold an umbrella slide down the banister Scotch eggs.

Yeah, it basically in the sense of purpose, right in this teleogical fashion, at which point, yeah, you you actually do lose questions of why. But it is worth noting that that's not necessarily that's not actually an implication of atheism.

It's material material to say that, no.

No, no, you can't. This is what they always try to do. They're like, I'm an athist. No, I'm an asians an interior. I haven't had one atheist who claims they're nano materialists are able to defend how it is they deny materialism, if they deny God, not one. All they do is positive They oh, well, I just hold well, I'm an atheist. I just you know, I just come to the conclusion that God. You know, I'm not. It's not a reasonable belief for me to hold that God exists.

It's it's not a problem for atheists because you, I mean, the real problem is when you reduce everything to the material, which I suppose almost materials. All materialists are going to be atheists. But it doesn't mean little atheists are going to be materialist.

No, no, no, it does. It does mean that. Now you think that it sounds reasonable to say that, doesn't it? Well, logically, yeah, we could probably say, well not you know, all materialists must be atheists, or all atheists or will be materialists, but not all materials will be atheist. That's not true. Now you think that's true, But you're just being lazy about it. No offense, You're just being lazy. All you have to do is push them by the way. This

You could be an atheist who believes that, you know, consciousness is immaterial or something, but you still don't believe in God.

Now you can't justify that. We're not talking about beliefs. This is why Jay Dyer sighs so much in his engagements is because they constantly conflate whether or not you can believe something and whether or not you can coherently defend it in your paradigm. So these people come to the oh, well, no, an atheist can believe in the mind and the consciousness is immaterial, so therefore they're not materials. No, when you ask them to justify the consciousness, they will

But he does.

Oh, they believe it. So so that's like saying, well, there are Christians who believe in Christ isn't divine, so you can be a Christian. No, no, you can't. You can claim that that's different.

Like the problem I've always had with the example you gave of that sort of being these two competing styles of explanation. It's it's something I hate commonly and religious discourse.

Like, okay, let's go to the next one. Atheists, that is art.

Atheists cannot get an ord from it. Is well to a some extent that that's a strong Argment's just that no one can make some this is this is a fairly common.

I've actually explored this, and even though it's a really good counter to someone who's committing the naturalistic fallacy or you know, like answers and atheism saying morality is biological or whatever it is. I thought about this and I still haven't fully exhausted it. And maybe you guys can give me feedback in the chat here when they say there's the is art gap that famously has been put on the marquee of philosophy, Hume, it removes am I

Theme in this genre of response video I find because you know, why does the universe exist? The smammy atheist says, I like that.

He says they're smarmy atheists at least, I mean they're smarmy theists too. Marcus says, I would say, more broadly, you are appealing to intelligibility, but truth is not separate from that. Really well, yeah, I would say to point to intelligibility assumes the laws of logic, law of identity, that there's a you intelligibly interacting with an intelligible world that's not identical to your mind and brain and body.

I don't know, and neither do you. And the point is like, like, you're asking a legitimate question, but it's a legitimate question that your answer to is either, like you say, a bit sort of ad hoc or a bit unsatisfactory or a bit silly, or you know, subject to its own analysis and questions. So can an atheist get an orphroman is no, But like you say, cannethists do it either. I had this debate with Ben Shapiro and Ben Shapier.

Wow, Ben Shapira can't get an art from it is even if he appeals to the ultimate circularity of God. He has a unknowable God. He has an unknowable bagel God Bagel.

Cool it with the anti Semitic remarks.

It makes sense that you would debate Ben Shapiro, who couldn't possibly defend the ultimate circularity of is to art, is to morality, which can only be God. He's gonna he can't, he can't do it, And I.

Think I didn't express this particular point well enough on basically everything he was saying. You know, well, if you're an atheist, free will can't exist. If you're an atheist, you know, there's there's no way to get aught if you're an And I was just sort of like, yeah, like totally, you're you're you're right, But but where the hell are you getting it from? What difference does it

Whoa, I had no idea. Rachel shout out to Rachel Wilson getting a question up on I didn't see that, Rachel spotted in the wild. Nice Alex O'Connor brings your question up, the question of why we ought to do anything aside from arbitrary preference right preference?

And so there are sort of two questions hovering here. There's can atheists have a concept of aught? And I think it's legitimate to maybe say that, you know, the concept of aught can only come from God. But if the question specifically as can you get an aught from an is? Even God doesn't help you there or God does, is just gives you the aught to derive more aughts from.

Yes, I mean I think, well, yeah, and that makes sense right because it's it's yeah.

But here's here's my point is that when someone's arguing, they're already assuming and ought to be consistent by arguing the isart problem. So here they are debating the is aught while while while assuming an otness toward consistency. This is where atheism breaks down. If it's unavoidable to argue without assuming an oughtness to consistency and some sort of direction toward truth. If it's unavoidable, the atheist doesn't have any reason to pursue truth, and the Christian does. The

Then?

Why debate? They're in their own conundrum right now. That's the difference between a Christian view and an atheist view is if you're arguing, is ought is something we ought to acknowledge the same way we ought to acknowledge it? Consistencies, fallacies, uh, wrong, wrong, the wrong approach to logic, in formal fallacies, the fact that you debate this stuff as intellectuals, in doing philosophy, you're already assuming and ought. If you want to be consistent, well,

JB.

Weezer says. I asked Breakfast Tacos how the universal quantum field theory could even minimally account for morality when by its own admission, it can't even model gravity, he refused, he won't answer direct questions. I do recommend many of you go to the Politics Discord and ask him the same hard hitting, simple questions that I have, and just flood him. Go there, flood him with the questions, simple simple questions for breakfast Taco in his own server, he

It's the problem of the old problem. This is kind of controversial me to say, but I think it's a logical problem. Right, You're your attempt from an is because because of the idea that you know, basically, anything within the logical closure of the statements you write must in some way be contained within those original statements. Otherwise we would be doing otherwise we wouldn't be doing logic, would be doing something else, or we wouldn't be doing deduction, we'd be doing something else.

Imagine they both had those mustaches. This would be very uncomfortable.

Would suggest that it is. It is primarily it just is an intractable problem.

Right.

You cannot get an aught from an is because if you could via if you could get deductively go from is to aught, then the aught must have been there originally.

Well, here's a question that I spoke about on a recent queen A Can you get an is from an aught? Because if you have an aught statement like you know, you ought, you know, like tidy the garden, then it does seem to contain within that the is statement that there is a garden, even even though it's like not really there explicitly, because the statement is just you ought to, you know, tidy the garden. It seems like you can say, therefore there is a garden.

Yes, I think that.

And if it were a logical problem, if it were like these are just two total.

That's not deep. That's like saying, well, if I'm using words that refer to things we already assume exist. Does an art statement make a garden exist? No, you don't get the is from the art statement. You're you're saying, we ought to attend to the garden already assumes there's a garden. It's not after you make the statement. Are these people retarded? All caps? Breakfast Tacos? You fell into my trap? No you didn't. You didn't set a trap.

Dude.

Your premise one is everything we observe to exist arises from previous stuff. I asked you, does regularity and nature exist as a phenomenon? You have to say yes. If it's true that the regularity of nature exists and we observe it, then you have to say the regularity of nature arises from previous stuff. And you can't do that. It's the end of your argument. Dude, that's why you fail to answer the question because you know it is. You said in our quote conversation Breakfast Tacos that what's

Okay, totally separate logical categories. Then it would seem like you wouldn't be able to go either way.

Well, so as in the.

Now, back to this, just to show how stupid what Alex just said. And this is a problem with high level philosophy. They assume each other our past stupid stupid statements. That's not none of us are past making stupid statements, none of us. But when your higher level philosophy, it's more likely that you're gonna assume someone didn't make a stupid statement. But he did, and the stupid statement was well, can't we get an is from an aught? So if I say we ought to tend to the garden, that

There it would be if you were saying you ought to tidy the golden someone might respond by saying, well, the reason you can get it there is a golden from there is because within the you alt to tidy the goblin is the sub idea that the garden exists. Right, it's and it's it's sort of a it's just sort of within the within the constraints of deductive logic.

That but maybe because like I mean, that was really he just corrected him.

But like it could be incorrect that there exists a garden. Somebody could could think you ought to tie to the garden.

And this is where you have to go five dollars, Thank you so much, Bob Chat. The fact that Breakfast Tacos is listening, probably recording for specific responses instead of engaging in debate and discussion shows he's not about truth but ego.

He is.

Yeah, he's he's doing a pig snake approach, right, you fill the pig snake. He can engage with my cross examination. That's all we need to know. He can do all this other stuff. He could do all this ranting and raving he cannot engage with very basic questions like is the sun arising from previous matter?

A process be wrong but still derived from that, I guess, I guess, like okay, to fine, like it like sub contains the like assertion that a god can exist.

Oh stop, Alex, just stop it ultra void five dollars. Professor Tacos tell him that the statement has changed to stuff evolves from previous stuff. Right, Yeah, well he also changed his argument a little bit.

But is there any way for somebody to say that some is statements sort of subcontain automatic ords.

Well, I think that is kind of what the theists. That is kind of a theist position, right, because if as in what it is a position that if it gets in called to solve morality, then that is part of your position, right, because you're saying.

Well, not just that using God is a better explanation for why we ought to pursue truthful beliefs or true statements about reality. The atheist has no reason this is so this whole thing can an atheists in and off from is explain divine senses worked civilization guide to truth that might exist? I mean their section in trusting human rational as a guide to truth might cover this. Where do the laws from logic come from? That's a good one.

Basically, well, Gold's will is good, you know, that's in that that that that is in. It's not that I think that you can't have mixed is old statements. Is that I think that if you just have his statements getting an alt it seems like it's.

A George tacobis sure Taco Lips Rising nine ninety nine says it. It's like that libertarian guy you had on with Jay and Chad. I'm not an atheist, Chad goes, how dumb? Becky, right right, No, you are, yeast. The breakfast Tacos also get roasted in the chat. Dude, We're not falling for your nonsense. It works on your dumb audience. It doesn't work on mine. My audience is smarter than yours. My audience is way smarter than yours. They saw the exchange.

It seems like a problem that strikes me likely to be intractable. I'm not saying it definitely is wrong.

So maybe what.

Theism does here is imparts certain is statements. Next question, how can you explain census divinitatis, which I believe is a term coined by John Calvin to describe the sense of the divine that I'm not doing.

There's another question we're not going to engage with Calvinism.

Provide me with a single civilization that has ever succeeded under an atheistic paradigm. Also, name me a civilization that has come into being without a preceding binding myth. So this practical question, like.

Yeah, yeah, this is a good question, and I don't know if they'll cover it, but you know, if you guys, remember Jay Dyer was on my mixed Bag and Derek from myth Vision was on there. And it was pretty much a soft conversation, and then Jay came on challenged him on his assumption of the path and the definition of a myth, according to the atheists, ultimately will lead them to accepting that they have a myth uh position

How does the atheists respond to the fact, like implied in this question, that there's never been a successful atheist in paradigm, and that there's never been this is big brain down, hasn't had some kind of like mythological founding.

I suppose that, I mean one. I mean, obviously I'm not an anthropologists, so all of these ants are going to be teriably unreliable and you shouldn't listen to me.

But oh no, no, no, they're not the onst thing I would point out here.

I don't think tacos are you know, if you say we're having tacos for breakfast. The fact that you have to say we're having tacos for breakfast and it doesn't occur as redundant means it's not really in the realm of breakfast, Johnny, Now, is it awesome to have pizza for breakfast? And yeah, but when you have it, there's no family who wakes up and when they say, you know, breakfast is ready, that there's not someone one or two people in the family who go, oh my gosh, tacos

You know.

I'm not of those people that as long as you're sitting on something it's a chair.

There was that this This this at least implies that, like I mean, the way the question says, also name me a civilization that has come into being without a preceding binding myth well prompt that it might not be true.

Also preceding it.

I think it may find the video Calvinism or Calvin Nislam interesting. That's that is interesting because I I always make that correlation. I'm sure I'm not the only.

Ones interesting that right, because I suppose that that's that might be a sort of chicken eg problem. I'm something interesting that.

Chicken over the egg? Well, it's a hot boiled egg in a little bowl, eat with a tiny spoon to nubble it for four months. Good lord. These two remind me of the old c Span panel where people just speak in monotone. It puts you to sleep. I'm sorry, we have to cover it. I agree, though, ultra void five dollars. I have request? Can you can you slow down how fast you to bunk breakfast tacos? I don't want to figure out a new topic for my super chats.

Now?

Okay, I went to your little server. You owe me one. Get one of your people to come and defend your argument.

Interest conservations as he thought that we often got CAUs as an effects really confused. So like you know, again, come on to essential issues in a second, like I'm not.

Gonna cover this part. The question is has there ever been an atheist civilization that really that really planted its feet and was long lasting without some sort of mythos? I don't think there has been, but that's not a great argument for whether it's true or not, which ultimately, when you're debating an atheist about anything, again, the only really important starting point is, let's say something's not true, why should I pursue the true part of it?

Right?

This was again I keep going back to Andrew's quote almost debate with Dilla Hunty, where he just said, you know what I'm gonna grant, Christianity is a complete delusion. We're a bunch of delusional retards. Why why should we avoid true beliefs? The question is if a secularism, if an atheism is true, If secularism is true, then what if you came to just the pragmatic application of a Christian ethical system and you didn't believe anything, How could

It's over.

Toast toasted tacos Uh.

He thought that it wasn't that ninistic people. He wasn't that a belief in God led sorry, disbelieving. It wasn't necessarily that a disbelief in values led to nihilism. He was pursuing the door emotionally because of the disorganization of their wills, and then it didn't make sense for them to value things. And it's like, you know that that he had a kind of.

You're going to need to make full statements, vegan, or I'm going to ban you. I like this new method I have is if if someone says stuff in the chat and I feel inclined to bring them on to defend their statements, and they don't come on, they get kicked out of out of George Landia, George Tacolyp's Rising, four ninety nine. It's true. I think she's a lady. I think she's a lady. I'm not convinced. I'm not convinced she's not a lady.

To, you know, simplifying somewhat, but was broadly someone who just thought, well, my will inherently has value, Like, what do you mean my will doesn't have value? I want something? What moude can you ask of me? And so and

If there's no God, there's no divining.

So yeah, he just admitted that if you get a bunch of people in the room, if they come up with a bunch of ideas, the only question is why abandon uh false ideas if they actually serve utility. You can't answer that from an atheist perspective. That's a better question. If false beliefs can produce utility. From an atheist perspective, a question is why abandon the false beliefs. They can't answer that question. That's way more, way more of a crucial question.

He's atheist divine guiding principle. Just to sort of lay this out for the materialist, like the brain is just a bunch of atoms bumping into each other. It's just like it's kind of like a rock.

That's the end of his all right, this is the end of fucking Alex's position here. It's amazing how they'll say this and then they'll follow without the entailment of that. They'll just be like, the brain is just a bumping bumping particles, right, bumping particles. We have no say in the matter, you know, Evaluation it's more bumping particles. Evaluation of those. Evaluation is more bumping particles, and we're basically arguing. Okay,

Piece of wood or something that happens to have developed this weird thing cool consciousness.

But so non Christians can't justify we ought not do things. Yes, you can't, not from a moral position. No, no, you just prefer it, right, Your justification ends up being at best a reference Like I prefer not to be harmed, but there are people who do like to be harmed. So if it's reciprocal, if you're arguing some sort of reciprocal metathical position, the moments where people want to do harm, it follows that you can do harm to them because they want it. So until while ten dollars, thank you

It seems no necessary reason why it would have to be formed in relation to truth.

Like we were just talking a.

Moment ago about how it makes sense to believe certain things that are false because it's like beneficial for us.

There we go, there we go.

If it happens to be true that that actually applied writ large to things like the laws of logic and mathematical truths, we literally be incapable of knowing because it might be the case that it's not the two plus two equals four. It's that believing two plus two equals four is beneficial for my survival. And that's why my rationality.

Now this is planting. This is parallel to planting goes argument evolutionary argument against the truth essentially, which is saying that evolution as a process doesn't pursue truths. Ultimately, it can come to well, the truth about the external world and I'm gonna survive, So there are some fundamental truths there that it does from its paradigm say well, no, it has to come to the truth that there's a threat out in the world, right. If it's gonna survive,

Believe that kind of thing, and somebody will come along and say, yeah, but hold on, like you know, it just can't like my brain just can't conceive of the opposite, like we can know it to be true, Albayori, And I'm like, that's because that's how your brain evolved. Right, there were people who believed the two plus two is fine.

Here's the problem with his view, which I use as a defeater to all of these people, which comes up a lot. Came up with Big Tech and the other dude in the in the in the spaces conversation. No, he's arguing whether or not believing the laws of thought, mathematic math being derivative of the laws of thought. Right, the sister, the sister to the laws of logic in

It's just that believing that was not beneficial to the survival, and so they died out, leaving only us. Now people will want to say, like, this is stupid. What do you mean that the reason they died out and the reason why believing two plus two equals five was not beneficial to the survival was because it's not true.

Do you think design designer argument refutes the non smart atheists? Not necessarily, because someone could do a very basic bitch design argument and presuppose like aliens. So it doesn't really get us to God. It just pushes the argument further, right, It just pushes it further. For instance, someone could argue design and not believe in God at one level, they'd eventually be pushed in morality, knowledge and all these other transcendental things, but they could hold a position. At least

Right, And do you think that that's a well a good response to this. I think this is a one instance of what a huge of just a general problem of se Well.

It makes sense. It makes sense by the way, if they try to extrapolate evolution, which they don't even have a biogenesis covered, but they're already trying Carpenter to posit some sort of evolutionary theory applying to planets and the cosmos that's not identical to biology, but akin to it. So if you do that, what's the logical end. Well, if that's the case, you're going to take this approach, that's that there was an initial organism, the same way

It does.

To say something exists and it's physical means that there's a distinction of what physical means, which means it abides by the law of identity and non contradiction. We use logic think about the world. No, the ability to think about the world presupposes a process that produced your thinker. If there's a process that presupposes your thinker, Big Tech,

You've got two claims. You've got one about a pistemology and one about ontology. And effectively, the question is how we're going to get them to play nice together. And the trouble is, I mean, on the classic Aristotelian model philosophy, you have a bunch of branches.

By the way, this section is called trusting human rationality as a guide to truth. It's perfectly, perfectly parallel to the engagement I'm having with big tech right now.

The outer branch of the tree, and you get to the middle and it's metaphysics orontology. It's like the stuff that is. This is why Descartes meditations on Metaphysics is called meditations on first philosophies, because metaphysics is the first philosophy. And I think that the trouble is that there is in practice, there's an interplay. There is mutual dependence between your pistemology and your ontology, because your ontology.

Could will justify your phenology, but.

Your epistomology has to justify why you believe in your ontology.

What is Finally the atheist who actually properly assesses the interconnectivity and the inseparable nature of the branches of philosophy. Now I don't know if he's going to continue there to meritfit to morality. But yeah, metaphysics, ontology, epistemology, you cannot talk about any of this stuff without assuming the other branches constantly. You're just constant. It's like three circles, three spheres of influence that are always overlapping. You cannot

Yeah, epistemology like the study of how you can come to know things, and ontology the study of what is so my epistemology is in that. That's a really good example of where somebody is put forward the argument that the ontology has undermined epistemology. The idea that we are simply evolved creatures atoms bumping together and that's all our brains are, and that's what our rationality is, has undermined or pulsively undermined the epistemology. And then the.

See now he's already ahead of most atheists, all the atheists that we engage with, all of these discords, they fundamentally would spur get this. They probably are in the in the in the comments, honestly going no, no, you can't say that that if the ontology of rationality is purely physical molecules bumping together, if you're ontology. If if, then you're epistemology is reduced to molecules bumping together. So they undermine each other.

And this is it's kind of fascinating, right, But then the you have to assume the reliability of epistemology in order to come to any sort of ontology.

So the so when the theists, so, I don't know what you mean by that, ian the extent, no, I do reviews. And then I open up the panel sometimes or I'll go on, what are you talking about? I engage constantly. What are you talking about? It's actually you guys who don't engage. Iron Charioteer has been here for year a year plus and he's never called in. That's called not engaging with me. It's you guys, project You're just a bunch of chat pussies. All. You a bunch of chat pussies.

Not just that the theist argument is circular. When they would say, oh, well God would ground that's, well, how do you have the prans to gold grounding it?

How do you know that?

What's what's the pre considered reliability of your pistemology?

Now he's using some sort of criteria problem, right, And it's not like the problem of the criteria isn't a isn't a valid thing to look at. It's just the problem here is this is why everything pushes to the necessary preconditions argument, that you can't escape making a tag argument, even if you're not a God believer. You have to make the tag for something. They do tag for initial state, they do tag for you know, quantum foam, the tag

Gee, that has allowed you to know that your reasoning chain from God existing to the reliability sugar pistemology looks but this, and this is sometimes polsted as a problem for the theists, but it's not. It's a fun basic what do you think for everyone?

We're just molecules? But also yeah, the rational but we're just molecules, but there's a we we're just molecules. But there's an eye? What no, what is this ie you're talking about it? What a uh conglomeration of particular items and patterns? Is you?

Is the you?

Rationality? Certain molecules are rational and propositional and others aren't. So I love bringing up the waterfall. How is it the case that everything is fundamentally made of atoms and the mere organization, the difference in organization of those atoms can render one thing completely propositional and rational and the other thing not. It's insane, that's an insane fairy tale, that's greazy, that's magic. By They're like, oh, the theist

It's a it's a problem for everyone, right, it's because it's because of this, it's because thank you for prediction on what we think is and what is? What we believe is the case is predication on what we think we can Yeah, so so so.

Well, we'll break this down even if you just feel sach Alex, I could see looking you.

Want to bake and I'm too little for him. Look, I have seventeen thousand followers.

Come and I think, no, don't apologize. That's what we're here for.

But they won't. They won't. If they did, that would be great. It's just that they won't. I'm also too aggressive. I can't sit here and try to pretend I am. I'm sitting in a fucking library that smells like a pipe, like a pipe. You know, I'm low class. I grew up in an old farmhouse. Okay, I'm aggressive, I'm arrogant. I'm gonna mock you. Okay. They don't like that. They don't want that, they don't want that. I think I'm toxic. Toxic.

There's like a circularity potentially in the Godge justification and saying, well, I can trust my rationality because you have seven fifty. That's what day caught does, and you have seven to fifty.

Everybody go over and follow mister Westford. Just we've got to get this guy over one thousand and Also, this is a good time to hit.

The like button.

I thought I died.

Right, Alex Jones, right, am I right?

Love it.

The famous criticisms of descartes work is known as the Cartesian.

Yeah, he'd have for better, Yes, Andrew, Well, if you need God, Andrew is in the position to debate a lot of these people. Yep, and he could, he could manage. He's just more he's more inclined to political debate and granting all of the ship, and he's less like you know,

Who did it to justify your reasoning ability? How do you reason that God exists in order to justify so it goes around in the circle, right, and.

So yeah, kind of what's happening now. I mean Jay has done and continues to do lots of work against atheism, but it's kind of a like a fun trio. My buddy texted me and he was like, Oh, it's fun to watch you guys, because Andrew's got the d Jens. You know, he attacks the Djens, debates against the Muslims, but mostly focuses on the d Gens. And Jay is focused on Heresi's Islam assists and so forth, but still debates atheism. But I'm like, rigidly focused on materialists and atheists.

Think about like the atheist urgeon of this or the atheist problem here is really put together best I think by Alvin planting it his evolutionary argument against naturalism. So he specifically makes the case that if you believe in evolution. I've talked about this a lot, right, If you believe in evolution and your materialists assume you're a materialist, you believe in evolution by natural selection. Natural selection selects for survivability.

Also, it results almost universally, results in a secular view that at the point in time they've used their reasoning to come to the conclusion to not reproduce. So even the aspect of evolution we called fitness, if planting a new the future of the secular behavior we see today, which is ultimately, don't have kids, you know, pursue your own wants and desires without consequence, pursue convenience above all things, freedom above all things. And it resulted in what's also

You've used to reason into it. So he sort of points out that, like, you can't be a materialist and believe in evolution, self cleaning up and cuts the reasons you have for believing in evolution.

The thing is right, Yeah, that's right.

One of these that's right is a vicious circle, and one of them is horrifyingly true. Because for the atheists, you've got this horrible problem where like you've got this weird circle of like like, yeah, I believe that it's just atoms bumping into each other that has no connection to truth, and that's produced this belief. But it's that belief which is caused this this reasoning fact, and you're getting all messed up.

You know.

The theist goes around in a circle, but they say, okay, sure it's circular, but we all have to start somewhere, and everyone's circular in some degree. But my circle is one that says, well, God justifies reason because he's an agent who is, you know, the foundation of truth and gives us access to truth.

Not just that no reason itself is a mind is a mind oriented thing, reason, logic, truth, meaning these are all mind oriented things. So we don't just we don't just you know, out of nowhere, pose it the same way someone would pose it like spaghetti monster. We don't just pause it that God is the foundation of reason. There there is a way to communicate that that makes sense.

So it's not just this.

It's not just this like lazy leap to link truth to a person. It's not a lazy leap to link absolute concepts to an absolute mind.

It's truth.

And yeah, sure to get that. But that circle is like consistent and self contained and gives you it could be circular, it is one that sort of gives you trust and truths.

I mean I think that, I think that the Yeah, the circularity still appeal is still applies to the atheist who is an empiricist, because they're ultimately saying, I I trust my senses, and my senses tell me to trust my senses. You don't escape circularity. All worldviews are faith based, all knowledge all worldviews are theory laden. And if we're on a web, you know, this is the analogy I use. If there's a bunch of random people on a web

Yeah, I think I think that is essentially the Coole difference betwe the too right self undermining versus self reinforcement. Yeah, that's the Yeah, I just want to point.

Out that let's go to the laws of lot of logic, where the goals of logic come from.

Oh, yeah, I know this is a fascinating one.

He's sorry, he's done.

One thing is that I you know, excited when I was he specialty was my mastical logic. It was like, that's what's what I focused on during my like doing using my master So it's it's it's it's a very interesting question. There there's a lot of dispute understandable as some argue that logic is a fundamentally emperi system founding. So some people argue that the laws of logic are abstracted from observations. We don't see contradictions.

So nope, no, no, no, no, no, he already start. I mean, come on, dude, you really think that's a good take. No, you have to use and assume the laws of logic before you do intake data. What are you talking about. The first fundamental assumption of the laws of thought is that you exist and there's an external world. By the way, the moment you state that you exist and there's an external world, you're now beyond assuming the laws of thought. But you're now doing metaphysics something called

We have the law of un contradiction, and oh we.

Have it, Hey, guys, we have it. So because there's a physical thing out there in the world, we have the law of non contradiction. No, no, no, no, no way to grant yourself. The first starting point of there's something out there in the world is the assumption that you are not identical to that thing. So he's like, oh, we see this in stuff, We see this in objects and stuff. No, who's this you? Who's this we? What are you talking about?

Like there was so many an attempted research program called quantum logic and like the eighties by Hillary Putnam. I think oh, Hilary attempted. He multified the classical Hillary in line with observations from quantum theory about.

What the thing is the same as the thing. No, it's not the same as the thing. That's the point. Big tech. How are you not following this at this point. Your first fundamental assumption that you you presuppose logic in is that you exist, that you have a mind, and there's an external world and other minds that are attached to other beings. That's the first assumption. Only after that do you do like higher resolution uh, sense input? You don't, by the way, you don't sense the laws of logic.

I don't understand physics in the slights I'm.

Gonna by the way, even the law of identity, even the perception. Another problem with the law of induction, right, is a different problem, but related to just assuming logic itself, the assumption of the regularity of nature and that logic is invariant, and then the regularity maintains. Just because the law of identity and the law of regularity work together, or one upholds the other, or one governs the other, doesn't mean they're identical. It's not the same. So the

And I.

Imagine that the general document was right. Imagine that you couldn't know position and velocity in my general life. What we would modify the laws of logic to reflect that, right? You wouldn't be able to you if you knew the you wouldn't be able to distribute certain properties, for instance, and stuff of that. So he says thing, okay, Well.

The laws of logic are prescriptive recommendations from I don't know if they're recommendations. You know why, because to make a recommendation you have to already presuppose logic. So there are laws of thought because you can't abandon them to think. Now, whether or not we can jump to a metaethical position of prescription versus description is something interesting, because why ought

It follows we modify the littles of electic in accordance with that.

No, no, no, no, what did you just say? Wait, hold on, a say we would modify the laws of logic. I don't know where they get off saying stuff like this. I don't know what it is that they're learning where they're not catching themselves in this statement. Maybe it's because I'm novice that I catch this stuff and they're all in their you know, they are all in these like well dressed stuff and they have so many books and stuff to say you could modify the laws of thought.

To modify logic because of modifications.

No, no, no, no. Even quantum mechanics, even if they run unbridled into quantum mechanic world where one particle is the same as another, but they're in two spots, even that appeals to the law of identity. You couldn't even say. You couldn't even say that there's a particle called itself and there's another one in a different spot. Is the same as that, even your mind being blown at theoretically

Law of this thought, suggesting, well, what this does show is that the laws of logic would be ulterable if we encountered certain things in the world.

Now, that's so stupid. That's so dumb. I can't even blieve. I can't believe this is It gets frustrating. I'm starting to do the Jay Dire sigh. All right, this is dumb. Is domb next scuber dude, listener done, this is Oh, if we observe something else in the world, let me change the laws of thought, the laws of logic you used to perceive those things needed to be true. Okay, just listen, just listen to what he's saying. Listen again, listen what he's saying.

You wouldn't be able to distribute certain properties, for instance, and stuff like that. So he says saying, okay, well, we would modify the laws of logic in accordance with that. So whether or not you know you want to modify logic because of observations and quantum mechanics, he's suggesting, Well, what this does show is that the laws of logic would be alterable if we encountered certain things in the world.

Encountering certain things in the world, presuppose the logic that you're thinking is alterable. You notice that, So he is going to pursue leave some things using the standard logic that we have that he can't refute or counter, and then he's going to use that logic to give himself his data input. And then his assumption is that after he's received the input of things in the world through the classical laws, after the fact, he's going to abandon the laws that he used to perceive to then rewrite

There is some empirical compontis, but that's the that's the epistem logical answer for Putnam. For other people, it's intuition, and for others.

But he didn't answer the question. The question is where do the laws of logic come from? The question was not can you hypothesize an imaginary clown world in which you can conventionally change the laws of thought? That wasn't the question. That was not the question.

But there's also the metaphysical problem, which is why do the laws of logic work?

And again you no, no, no, you're just not answering the question. Guys, you're just sharing your tea and crumpets, right, you're shopping for these collared shirts together online in the breaks you know, in the breakroom, and you're not answering this question where do they come from? Where do they come from? Which ends up being an ontological question. Fine, he's just saying, well, the question actually brings up a bigger question I can answer, which is what's the ontological

That's the quest kind of human humans. It's really annoying directions of explanation where some people say, will say, with the laws of logic work because we've they are designed to fit the world. We have design them to fit the world.

No, we didn't design them to fit the world. No, that's just insane. Now we describe something, we describe the laws of thought, and the fact that the laws of thought are consistent with the world doesn't mean the laws of thought are identical to the objects. We didn't describe them because they work, because to describe something already appeals to the thing is already in existence. They're just like, you know, I don't know if Peterson would consider this postmodernism.

Postmodernism. He's taking a fundamental approach that if you describe something, then it's real so long as you accurately describe it and it's consistent with reality.

There's a real shit take, real garbage take.

And then for a lot of people that's deeply unsatisfactory because they say, well, you know what, why does the world correspond with the laws of logic? How have we been able to do that? Why is the world not not chaos?

And and uh and and.

Darkness and and lots of other nasty, unpredictable things that make logicians nervous and and yeah, and that's a broadly.

Those are two different questions. The law of identity, the law of identity non contradict contradiction excluded, middle could very well have its own invariant status, and there could, from an atheist view, be a world where it's indiscernible the regularity of objects that they pop in and out of the existence, like let's like take chair, like anything natural like a tree or something else. If suddenly trees shared the status of the double slid experiment with as particles.

Dude? Hey man, what's up? How are you?

I'm doing good, you know, I'm just getting naturally frustrated when you when I do these streams and I start to hit my point of sighing and gasping. I don't know if he saw this. This is fairly new Alex O'Connor, which eventually you'll be able to debate this guy it'll be beautiful or this other guy too. I mean, he's got a decent channel unsolicited advice. His channel is they're talking about answers atheists can't answer. If you missed it,

Uh?

I covered there this video. I'm going through their chapters of what they list as the argument the questions the atheists.

Can't answer, right, But did they cover is art?

They did?

Yeah?

They essentially said, well, the Christian can't uh can't answer the art problem either, and and so you're in the same problem. And I brought up, well, there's a different question. Why ought we be consistent with let's say, is art fallacies or following fallacies? Why why aught we pursue true things or consistent beliefs at all? Is a bigger question

Well, I haven't seen the list, but I would just say stuff like, how are their laws when a law cannot be identified with any set of atoms? And if they say something like or molecules, well it's a recognition of a pattern. To call something a pattern assumes what is in question, which is what's the unifying thing between these particular instances, And they can never get anything more

Yeah, So an atheist view, which ultimately almost every time reduces to physicalism or naturalism. They're engaging with a bunch of in their worldview, particulars that don't have a unifying principle or law to them. They're all just particulars, and that because they occur as they work together, that's enough for them to just grant themselves some sort of uniformity. But the particulars themselves don't give them the uniformity.

And what is the law exactly if and usually when you drill into it, they just end up being it just ends up being a circle. They just restate that it's the things that are similar, what are the things that are similar, the patterns that are like It's just like they can never really give you anything substantial because once they admit metaphysical principles, they're in an even deeper dilemma because they have to then try to give an account for something that most of the time they're positioned

Dude, every time its just to me, it always goes to all his foot. It's it's every single time where you're like, well, what's what are you referring to that's similar to this other thing he's trying right now, this guy by the way, Jay, he's saying that, well, the law of the laws of thought are just consistent descriptions with how we see the physical world, which obviously is appealing to the thing in question because in order to engage with it.

So they're descriptions of the actual physical world or the way we see the physical world, because those are two different things in the history of empiricism.

Yeah, so there's the things in the world, and then they just grant themselves, well, their interpretation of the things in the world are self evident, but that's not true, is it? Like so so also, the uniformity of how people interpret things in the world has this so coherency. It's not identical. We misfire, we get something's wrong, but there's a general unity between mind concepts in the material world.

And then there's another layer two, which has often missed because a lot of people don't do anything with linguistic philosophy. And I'm not a linguistic philosophy expert, but I had enough of it to notice some of the big flaws or the big holes in the atheist position, which is that if you get into the nitty gritty of linguistic philosophy, you start to realize there's a difference between a proposition, like the truth value of the proposition and what it's

Yeah. And by the way, I've argued that when I argued that from the physicalist atheist view that laws, evaluations, and propositions, if they're reduced to material end up just

And hears over in the mind over time, right, not just identity over time in terms of the objects, but if they predicate meaning of some object or some subject or whatever, the idea is that there's the same meaning that's going on in my head is actually matching up over time to the objects in the world which have identity over time. So the more you dissect this, the more it really is resting on all kinds of things that they just never even thought of. And most of

I'm trying to find ways to draw this in like, you know, not a huge insult, but it's just kind

Yeah, I mean, if I write this out this proposition nature is Lawlike I mean, this is a series of symbols on a board that refers to what thing I mean. It's not obviously referring to any specific particulars in nature. It's referring to this supposedly universal pattern. And to make it universal will add all nature because they typically do make universal quantifier claims all nature is Lawlike, Okay, what what's the truth? They are assuming that this is a

You know?

Just at any point if you think about it linguistically. And I'm not telling you what they were saying in the sure you saying like, nobody really goes after the atheists on this, not because of any being stupid and on our side. But just people just don't even realize how much goes into Like to be able to make a sentence meaningful requires a certain kind of world.

Yeah, and it's a crazy world. If you're going to try to explain it in just particulars that are unrelated, it can't. Well just you can't.

Chaotic molecules firing of unrelated particulars. Yeah.

Also that brings up the law thing in general, even if you said granted them the statement nature's law, like I always like to put it, like, Okay, objects exist, right, forget about how you're going to justify how objects exist and what their beginnings are. You know, stuff comes from stuff. As an argument I've been debunking the last couple of months. The stuff, even the collection of the stuff, let alone the particular stuffs that you're listening. They don't give you

Yeah, I mean if then they're no longer laws different, I mean, if they could be otherwise they're not.

They're not laws right right, And you're and you're appealing to something you're calling law like uh, to observe it and then going well I'm gonna change it. Well, no, you're you're trusting the thing you observe to begin with. That doesn't doesn't make sense anyway. Let them ramble on that.

That strikes me as a sensible question, right, and and and and often you know, and the kind of the only answer that that somebody who suggests that who's doing the human direction the metaphysical human direction explanation, that is to say something like, well, if the world have been different than the laws of logic would have been different, and we would have made different laws of logic, and like, well, let me see if he pushes back on that, I

He's also conflating right now, the methods we use to do induction or deduction, deduction being certain, induction being probabilistic, are identical to the laws that we use to do those things. The question is in the methods you use, but rather the laws that govern the methods of reasoning. And I don't know why they always collapse these two. It's like the laws of thought are not identical to the descriptions of them, Like there's a law of identity

Right. Yeah, I mean the first phrase that I'm still trying to think through that he said that I think was wrong is that we would make we made these laws right. In fact, they're discoveries, they're not creations. So because atheists don't believe in you know, divine truth or the divine mind, they assume that all this stuff has to be some sort of human social construct or some individual that made them or created them. So even though aerosol might be the source of the you know, classical

Yeah. Also, something really obvious here is that to say someone created something is to assume the law of identity before you're creating the law of identity. Like, this is why it's fun when I talk to these people when they assume axioms. They're like, they're like, I just you know, we developed the laws of thought, the three classical laws as axioms, and I say, how do you develop something without using the thing that you're saying you're developing?

It's impossible, right, So it's like, yeah, it's just stupid, like if they actually think that it didn't exist before that. So in other words, two rocks and two rocks wasn't four rocks until somebody decided.

That it was for all right, right yeah, as opposed to if you discover the law the laws of thought, the math of two plus two is derivative of the laws of logic, and that that too, right, you know, is under some sort of discovery and not from a creation. It's no, you don't create, it's not creative.

There's an eternal truth that humans have the ability to discover.

Mm hmm, as opposed to invent, and if it's invented, create no discovery. Yeah yeah, if you're creating the truth, you could just create a not a truth tomorrow and wouldn't have any problems. So, you know, the pursuit of truth.

In other words, you can just make it absurd and say so. Until Aristotle listed the law of identity, nothing had identity.

Nothing identity Yeah, yeah, even him, even Aristotle. You know there was no there was no hymn.

Yeah.

Something we talked about the beginning of the episode, which is what is the limits of possibility?

Uh?

Is it is?

It?

Is it in some sense impossible for the loss of logic to have been different because like the lads of logic, that's a component as well, because the laws of logic all themselves kind of controversial. So you know things like that, you know, a few a few uncontroversial as well as uncontroversial as anything.

Well, I mean, by the way, the fact that something is controversial or I mean that I'm guessing they're going to probably get.

Into fuzzy logic or something.

Well, the foulas give incredulity. Like when you were talking about his account of saying that Christians they don't have an answer is ought and I'm thinking, I didn't hear what they said, but I'm guessing it was probably that they have a they don't understand or consider it to be a sufficient answer. Right when when a Christian says that God is the reasoning for and they would probably say something like, well, I find that hard to believe.

Yeah, whether they're not con controversial or controversial is irrelevant to.

It's like what people say, Well, Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox disagree over the Church of the first thousand years, so we can't know. Well, the fact people disagree is irrelevant to whether it's for false.

Yeah, I got you. Yeah, that seems to be a good safeguard from coming to any certain conclusion about it, which is all they've done so far. They haven't really said no, we can answer that question. They're kind of being I would even say humble in their responses so far.

A implied to be then dumb from humble b stuff like that. One of the one of the less controversial ones is the law of non contradictions. So you not a and not a, So if you have a, you can infer.

Not, So something can't be true and false at the same time.

Yeah, basically, I mean it's it's very intuitive, right, but but but but there are people that you say not as in it's true that not brackets.

A and not a.

So I mean I don't know.

Now, another thing, Jay, I know you covered this. But if you're just purely relying on science and induction and you believe that everything's in flux, then there is no maintained identity of a at the molecular or the larger scale of the thing you're referring to.

So now that they believe in flying spaghetti monsters called laws of love, right.

Right, totally, and it's always changed if it's in flux, then the thing you're constantly referring to to make statements when they say, well, a can't be not a and this is a law, well, well, if the thing you're referring to out in the world is always changing, you could actually say that there is only one instance that's that's tiny in the fraction of time where something existed as purely itself and everything else is some weird changed

Couldn't even identify molecules without right.

And make like a little little icon pop up.

We're getting getting a hard no from our video not a and not a and close bracket and there's but there's there're also more controversial logical laws, like the law of the excluded middle, which is, oh, I always get this.

Actually that's let's just say.

Something can only be tru or false, be true false. There are two really similar laws here.

So one is the law of the excuded middle, and one is by valence and some reason, I always get them the wrong around, like completely roasted by supervisors.

But what's the what's the difference?

Well, so loa of the law of excar middle is something is either a or not a. The law of vivalences. Any statement is either true or false, and they're clearly connected. But they are different in the way. Well they're distinct in the way that.

They have been misusing that too.

But I mean I misuse it all the time, and I meant to know about this.

It's like I always say whatever, man, Yeah, exactly.

So, Jay, would you say the three classical laws are distinct from each other on their own or are they entailments of each other? And you don't know where the starting point is necessarily.

Like it like it's they assitate each other. There's not really a starting point, gotcha.

So here are some examples of the kinds of laws that we're talking about, These kinds of like fundamental, seemingly self justifying, self intuitive, like like bases You don't it? I mean like if A implies B. That is, like if A then B A, therefore B. Well, how do you how do you how do you know that? It just seems like you're kind of saying the same thing twice.

Yeah, it just has to be true. Yes, what if you don't have this, what do you have? So the one of the one of the quotes of classical logic is that you can and a contradiction implies anything, and.

So if jay, so if the atheist says, well we accept logic, whether we call it axiomatic or not, we can't not accept it because it's it's a contradiction to attempt to reject it. Now, is that sufficient in just one level of argumentation?

No?

Can you talk on that quickly?

Yeah, there's a great section on this in the Russ Manion paper where he covers this. Because you might think that just pointing out that we absolutely have to have logic might make it a justification, but as Manion points out in the paper, just saying that it appears to be NICs necessary for predication doesn't mean that it's the case. It also doesn't tell me that my mental schema of what's necessary for me to have predication necessarily applies to

I understand it. It sounds like just to translate here is that pointing to the necessary the necessary existence of one thing isn't sufficient because there's a whole slew of other things that need to be the case alltogether. Is one thing that for that to operate. So, for instance, if I come to the conclusion of rejecting the law

That will give you the justification for the principle itself.

Gotcha? Yeah, because there's just one isolated instance that you're referring to. Even if you granted, okay, fine, it's absurd to reject it. To reject something assumes the mind. Now you have another thing that is absurd to reject. And now how many things can you put in the basket

I think that's true. But if I remember in the in the manupaper, he just makes it even more simpler. Basic reply, which is like he uses the kantient argument that Okay, so let's say for the sake of argument that it does it. It is seemingly absurd to deny the law of identity, and so therefore I need the law of identity, and so let's grant that. But that doesn't tell me that the law of identity, which I think is going on in my mental schema, actually applies

Yeah, yeah, you're just thinking the is pragmatic enough that we just do Yeah, then it's then it's pragmatism. It's like, oh, we do exactly, because yeah, so we can do stuff right Like that's no, it's like, yeah.

It's a pragmatic and that's not a number destigation and by that, by that logic, anything that seems to work, would therefore be justified right now?

Okay, so let me ask, and again you don't need to go into super detail, but maybe if there was a key distinction here, what if an atheist said, oh, actually, what Jay, just he made a lot of sense right there with these individual things that you can argue the absurdity of the conclusion. You know, what was it called? Sorry, the absurdity of the contrary, like to deny these things?

Yeah, That's why I always argue that you can't just do the negative critique. When you do tag, you also have to present the positive case of a Christian worldview. So the first critique is kantient, and if we were kantients, we would have to admit, like the Barry Stroud paper says that there's a problem in CONT's arguments that don't necessarily prove what he wants to argue for. So remember in the first case of why say the law of identity?

I got you.

Maybe it is, but how does just it seeming and my coherence in my mind necessarily that the whole world externally to me is operating that way. Uh, that's just that's a sufficient enough objection to show that you need more for justification. So that's different than than arguing that the Christian worldview as a whole, which includes all of these things, is the solution to.

The that makes sense that Yeah, analogy would be I have a Swiss army knife of epistemology, ontology, metaphysics, morality or whatever, and I have it because it's useful. Right, that's a normal approach, you just ad hoc take it. But a Christian worldview is saying, not only is another any other of youew can't tell it, can't justify the Swiss army knife. We're gonna tell you how it is. You have the Swiss army knife altogether that you're using, not an argument that you you have it because you're

And this is even stronger a level beyond that, because this is actually saying not so much against the atheists, but against a foundationalist who would say, like Tim Gordon would say, well, look, law of identity equals a I mean through retortion or through a reductio. If you deny it, you can't have knowledge at all. That's true, But that

What do you say to this one? So ironic because the first Christians would have drug you both into the streets for being philosophers. Well, they didn't deny philosophy. They denied vain philosophy and not all philosophy. I mean, you couldn't actually I mean it's just a silly position.

Saint Justin Martyr is called Justin the philosopher.

Yeah, I mean philosophy. You can't really engage with any of the truth of the matter. You just think philosophy is a gross word.

Right.

This is a view that probably a Protestant, probably someone who's saying, oh, I read philosophy in the Bible and it says warning against it. Therefore, all philosophy.

And the most Ecclesiastes is a book of philosophy. Yeah.

Yeah, by the way, that did during the all of the Seven Councils and before did they was philosophy not necessary to debate and fight off heresies using consistency and logic and why things need to be accounted for using our God given faculties called the logic, heart, news, mind, rationality. Of course, I mean this is this is silly.

Yeah, it's vain philosophy, that'sful.

Yeah, vein, Yeah, vain philosophy.

My logic tutor in first year used to say that a good way to get your head around this intuitively is well, if this is true, then anything can be true.

Yes, yeah, that's a great way of putting it. I'm go've been planning on doing a video about about this concept you know from X Also yes, yeah, yeah, I'm.

Gonna actually skipto consciousness here not being a materialist.

Yes, I mean this is this is almost like that. We've the kind of runs like that would apply to the logic one, indeed loads of ones.

You can believe that consciousness is this strange immaterial you could believe in.

The of the soul.

Okay, I wanted to you weren't here for this. Jay he was in the early part of this video. He was saying that, you know, there are atheists who are materialists or a materialists who are atheists, but there are people who are atheists who reject materialism. I'm saying, Okay, fine, people can try to hold the view I've come to the conclusion that I'm not. They can claim that, but I'm not certain how an atheist is not going to be whittled down into some sort of materialism or physicalism.

Hold There are in the minority, you know, atheists, philosophers and academics who are not strict materialists.

There are some, But are they consistent as opposed to the position? Okay, That's what I'm saying, is like if I yeah, that's that's a question, is like are they really when pressed? I think the answers no, do they hold the position?

Fine? Like you could be you could be a you could be a platonist atheist, and you could be a transcendental idealist atheist, and like you could you could conceivably, for example, think that all of reality is pure idea like Barkley did, and just not believe in a deity. I suppose, But I mean that's like very rare positions, like maybe one in a thousand professors as that position.

Yeah, That's why I ask, like, well, someone could post the position up and if we start kicking at it, it seems like they would have no place to go then to reduce things to empirical things and matter and physicalism. If they're questioned, unless you they just go listen. I just take this weird, unjustified platonic view that there's things out there that aren't identical to matter and somehow we have access.

They could actually they could just be barkley An idealists or Platonist idealists, and they could just simply deny matter. They could just say what you think is matter is just ideas and there is no God, there's just ideas. So what exactly ideas are would just be, you know, something immaterial invariants or something like that. But again that's a very few people. I mean, there are philosophers who.

Would think yeah, but then they have a they're bracypically, they're basically halfway into solipsism. And at that point because then you just ask, well, whose ideas? Whose ideas are the proper assessment of the external world, And then like you know, it's this battle of like one person set of ideas versus another person. But then that person has to be beyond an idea, Like if the objects in the world there are just ideas, then the people in

But well, I mean they might think that there's many, many ideas in many minds, so all that exists is mind. Matter is illusory. There's many minds and many ideas, and then what we call matter is just the what we think is going on with molecules, when really it's all just ideas as they're presented to us. Yeah, so there's the reason, the reason why. There's actually a reason why they might think this though, and this has to do

Right right right, And that leads to would you say that leads I think.

If I mean, I think you could go towards syllipsism, yeah.

Or pant psychic. I don't understand how you could be a pan psychic. And then also it makes some sort of distinctions between I.

Think the problem that position is that they have to end up like having a bunch of metaphysical assumptions that are very contrary to kind of common sense reality. So it's sort of like everything that you think is going on isn't going on. And then it's like, okay, well, if that's the case, then why should I assume this metaphysical assumption of there being mini minds and there's like a giant mind. And it's just sort of a lot of leaps.

Yeah. Well, also that what you said before, if there are these people that you said during that phase of philosophy were who are saying, well, there's just ideas out there, and then the sense input. If the sense input had nothing to do with being dependent on an actual object, then you wouldn't need the external world to perceive what we call the external world. There would just be like this sense input coming from wherever. It didn't need to

Well would just say, for example, that what you're sensing is just another idea. So he's not saying it's all. He's saying that there are sensory inputs, but the sensory inputs are ideas from other ideas.

So this is the basis you know for Is this the basis for the similarcrum like which became the famous movie Do you think this view or is it before that? Like it seems like if that's that's that was the first like basement people being like bro like like what if we're just.

That's probably more so like from Plato, And the difference is that Barkley is an empiricist, and so Plato's Plato's not a big I mean, Plato believes that knowledge comes from since theive, but it's like the lowest level of knowledge. So they have a huge difference on where we get knowledge. But Barkley is a I mean, he's just as much an empiricist as well as Locke or David Hume. The only difference is that he's saying, David him, you're inconsistent

Wait, so you're saying, even no, famously human is the most consistent. There was another guy who was even more consistent.

Well, just on that one point of world. So he's basically saying and by the way, Barkley, because he was an Anglican clergyman or Irish Anglican clergyman, he wanted to defend theism against Hume and the skepticism, and he thought a way to do this would be to say well, maybe all knowledge does come from sense data, but the

Interesting. But then again, that would mean that to do induction, you're actually interacting with a set of particular ideas that aren't identical to the previous ones in every moment, right, but every.

Moment would mark as theists would say. Yeah, but in my case, I don't have a problem with there being universals and particulars. There's one ultimate idea, Who's God? That's the big idea?

Yeah, I gotcha. Do you ever get something as silly as this in your chat? The transcendental argument for evolution, that's funny is how you can have be a non materialist atheist. I'm sorry, but evolution is a materialist paradigm, right, So what is this non materialism you get from evolution? By the way, evolution even can't even tell you how information being immaterial and not identical to matter exists, and yet evolution requires the transfer of evolution. Becky, thank you, Becky.

Well again, like, it's really misunderstanding the function of the transcendental argument. It's not an argument to give you an indirect basis for anything. It's in our case, it's an it's an indirect argument to give you a base for the entire Christian worldview. So it wouldn't make sense to say that it proves an immaterial process that somehow gives rise to a material process, as gives rise to masteriality. There's no way that an abstract transnial argument could actually

By the way, these transitental things would be mind dependent and can't be identical to a physical process called evolution anyway. Right, So it's like to even post diction, uh summarize evolution, you're appealing to things that are not found in the process of evolution.

So I mean and Also that sounds like emergentism, which it's an argument against materialism. So right, matter gives rise to consciousness and immortation immateriality, that would be a refutation of materialism, and that would mean that evolution ultimately isn't true. Right.

Most people don't realize that. I talk to Father Deacon Anonius about that. How most people don't when they say emergent property, oh, the mind's emerging, they really think that the material reality can produce and percolate something that's not identical to the machine that's doing it, you know, like you know, steam over the pot of water or something. And and like you just said, it's most people don't

And by the way, if they're allowed to make that leap as a Dila hunty person is misusing that argument, then why then what's what's wrong with me saying? Okay, then there's immaterial things like angel souls and god.

Sure, sure, yeah, that's what That's one of my favorite angles is that I'll just take an ordinary atheist who says God doesn't exist, I have no reason to believing God because X Y Z empiricism evidential ism missing. And I go, oh, that's interesting. I'll just list the categories of things that they assume without evidence. This doesn't prove that all claims of things that are immaterial exists. It just shows that their standard they use to negate God's

It's like exactly, well, back to the great paper the Two Dogmas of Empiricism by Kwying. He ends the paper by saying that anytime somebody in the empiricist atheist tradition tries to predicate, predication itself is the equivalent of the ancient Greek god's meaning is the equivalent of the ancient Greek gods and the vice spaghetti monster.

Wow, so this stuff, you would you say, the criticisms of all this stuff, and the fact that this stuff percolates back up into culture is the result of the Enlightenment itself, because they just got lacks on their rigor. They just granted a bunch of things and people ran rampant because didn't the Enlightenment correct me if I'm wrong, just say, well, let's take a self evident axiomatic approach to all these fundamental things, and we don't have to

Yeah, exactly, you're right. Enlightenment is critique, right. It's basically saying, let's take the laws of logic, the self evident actions and principles, and let's critique the metaphysics of Christianity, the ancient world in the Middle Ages. And what we see when we do that is we basically hack off everything metaphysical.

Yeah, yeah, And they're and they're taking their approach altogether is backwards, like using instead of asking what's the ultimate start point for all of this being possible? They go, well, what what endpoint can we get to using our faculties? And it's like, well, no, the question is how did you get your faculties to begin with? How is it the case that you can even reason to a conclusion? Not you know, the other way around. And hence I believe that would be the basis for pursuing the tag

I think men are limited by their times and we can't expect, you know, people in the Middle Ages, we can't expect them to necessarily ask the questions of the eighteen hundreds because a lot of things have to happen, a lot of questions of people kind of creatively saying, hey, wait a minute, what about this, Like we've assumed this, we haven't asked this because remember, I mean, there's those

Yeah. Well, someone recently asked me, hey, Jim Bob, you're doing a lot of talk about evolution. You know, why is it the case that people in this field haven't brought up your contentions and the contentions of your your you know, your associates and peers. And I'm like, well, this assumption that if something's false, the presentation of how it's false is going to be adequately accepted in the time frame that the paradigms delivered, we're still very new, by the way, in the infancy, right.

This is the point of Thomas Kuhne's Structures a Scientific Revolution that that famous book one an a word, because the whole thesis of the book is that new paradigms are not accepted immediately at that time on the basis of pure reasoning and demonstration and proof. In fact, when challenges to paradigms are put forward, the tendency for human nature is to cling even more intensely to the existing paradigm before they concede to the new paradigm.

Yeah, yeah, it's interesting. And by the way, if we get to a point where, you know, natural selection and all the all the rest is adequately offset by something new, the people who believed in all that dogmatically are just going to move over to their their authority anyway and say, well, it was our authority who debunked.

In exactly what. There's a pattern there between. I mean, they're talking about two different topics, but Kwind's two dogmas of empiricism, right, He's pointing out that empiricism was intended to get rid of dogmas of metaphysics. And yet empiricists in their extreme reach, like people like what does he say, Popper Carnapp and others like, they've gotten to this point. Carnapp.

Which is why, you know, even in my own chat, the impulse is to have this negative aversion, you know, to dogma, and we go, no, no, you can't escape dogma. In general, the term it's just that you gotta you gotta isolate, you know, when it's incoherent or limited or something like. Because we wouldn't just say dogma icky. People think that that's just what you should do. You just go dogma, ikey yucky. Well, obviously in Christianity we don't say dogma ikey yucky. But in their tradition and in

So it's a total worldview. In fact, I mean the famous skeptics and Skeptic magazine like Michael Schermer and those characters like they notoriously never deviate from the establishment teaching

Yeah, it's not skeptical at all. But you know they get their their touring badges. Yes, from that anyway, So let's move along with this and see where if they take make us anywhere.

All you can believe in all that kind of stuff and just not believe in like an agential god overseeing it all, it would be quite weird.

Agent.

It will still be like weirder that there wasn't some creative.

Wrong?

Is that something not tangential like an agent?

Like, but he said agent, make it, I'll make it populous.

I've persuasion. It's worth noting that. But I think really the question here, put in the context of atheists not being able to answer it is like conscious a strange thing to expect, reputed.

Me, refer referring to having agency thinking mind.

I got to retire, he reputed me.

Yeah, it's over.

If there is no they're going to bring verse and if there is no immaterial element to the universe, because consciousness seems like it's immaterial. It seems I mean, we can answer this as if we were looking for questions that materialists can't.

Yeah.

Yeah, Like consciousness is very strange. I've talked about a lot recently. The people Who've been listening to my recent material will know that I'm just amused by consciousness.

As it's it's well, it's actually it's it's a bit like the laws of logic in the sense, and it's one of the weirdest things. I'm one of the most obvious things. What are you going to do to Like? It's like I think it's Paul Churchman is a limited materialist, so he thinks that the consciousness doesn't exist and he thinks about it. He's funny because, like I remember reading one of his papers and be like, what do you

Is another thing? Uh, there are two separate questions, Jay, is what is consciousness? And are you able to coherently reject consciousness? As the way you know it to be. Like, even if you positive a non exhaustive definition of consciousness, the act of denying it would be utilizing the thing that you're denying, so it'd be absurd. But this isn't

Yeah. I think typically atheists make that mistake. They're gonna start trying to talk about where they think it came from, as if that justifies it or if that gives an account for it, which it doesn't. It's just telling a story. But what is it? I mean, in the Orthodox view, it's I guess the the energy of the of the soul's awareness of what's going on in the world and in terms of the beings of the world. So I think we would have an energetic description of it.

Would that be distinct j from the news, the sort of conjunction of the mind heart interaction with the metaphysical. Would consciousness be something not identical to the apparatus that engages with consciousness?

Okay, Yeah, the news is the heart. So basically, you know, the mind's up here, hearts over here. So fathers always say that the the mind. There's nothing wrong with the intellect the mind, but it's a limited thing. It has to be put into or or moved into the heart, meaning that has to work in union with the heart faculty. And until we are repentant and in relationship with God, our heart faculty is out of whack. And so we're going to think that, like all the atheists do, that

Yeah, that they exist. You know, I don't exist. That's interesting because I thought about this, how we from a Christian view, we say something like morality is written in our heart. That would be pointing to the news that something is not reduced to intellect but uses intellect, wouldn't deny the intellect. But then I thought, well, is there a similar statement, and you tell me from a Christian view orthodox specifically, is that the way in which morality

I think the way that fathers describe it is that, and they're not coming from a philosophy view on this, they actually is actually rooted in the Hebrew prophets, because you'll read like David talks about his heart. You know, Paul says the Word is near you, even in your heart, which is not to say that God is not connected to the mind, but that fallen man has the tendency to worship and only go with his intelluctenced mind, which is a limited faculty. It's good, it has a lot

The intellect got you and then not and holding that view doesn't clear the windshield, so to speak. That from our view, the practice the going to divine liturgy, the practice of clearing the hard, clearing the soul like a it's not like it's not like you just yeah, it's not like you just go, well, I hold this view. Therefore it's like I'm not exactly it's.

An acquiring of the virtues. In other words, this is that point we have to always have to come back to, like, you can't divorce a pistemology from ethics because, as Wood points out W. J. Wood in that book, he points out that like wouldn't we think that the realm of intellect and reasoning, Like wouldn't we want people to be intellectually honest? Like So in other words, obviously you can't

Yeah, That's what fascinates me about that the Scripture, the fool in his heart, you know, rejects God essentially because it's not that they're using just their intellect in their sort of in their rebellion of God, you know, because coming to the conclusion like, oh, God doesn't exist if it was just purely intellect, it's not like the emotional aspect of rebellion of that or or let's say counter apologetics is based in just the mind, I find I

Exactly the difference between East and West. I mean, the entire Roman Catholic tradition after Augustine equates the soul with the mind or the intellect. And so that's why it's another reason why they think natural theology is true. It's another reason reason why they think that, well, if I just present the evidences, you'll believe right, they're missing the whole point that, like, you can't interpret even the natural world correctly without repentance.

Right, because the intellect would be some sort of added tool we're given to point to God or to find in a sense, but it doesn't fully get us there. But the intellect doesn't give you the heart that to give you the sense of why it is to even use the intellect like the intellect does and give you the reason.

It's like the difference. It's like the difference between me listing all the facts about my wife versus the actual relationship.

We have, right, right.

The facts aren't wrong, they're not bad. Yeah, but it's not the relationship, right.

Yeah, that's interesting. It's not like that. You know, our loved ones are like magic to gather or baseball cards would be more appropriate, and they have a list of attributes. And then you're like, I want to be with my wife and you're just looking like at a baseball part of your wife. It's like, no, that's not the participation that my wife is a fog and I throw down.

Yeah.

Total, you're like down, like you're downloading info and facts and just read them over and over. My wife is beautiful, My wife is beautiful.

That's funny analogy that FDA had between like imagine thinking that this is all like a rational contract or like a letter, right, rather than like the relationship you have with your wife. Right. So if somebody read a letter about me, would they know me in a limited sense? Yeah? I know about Jay. I read that letter that described what he's like that doesn't mean.

They know me, right, right? Yeah. That that's also gets into the our energies is our nature and our or our essence, is that when we engage with each other, we're engaging with energies and they're not reducible to a list in an essay, right, Like, so there are these things and you know again, even energies might even be like limited analogy, right because you know, because we have the words that we have, right, someone might press me like, well, energy refers to like a for like a force, something

No, it's not just physical. That's why. Uh, like we were talking about with Maximus and other Orthodox saints and theologians, like the energy of the mind. So when you talk to me, there's there's an energy, a mental energy that's happening here that's not equated to It has a relationship to the neurons firing. But it can't be reduced and equated to uh, physical energy, like you're saying.

Right, right, because intent an active activity like you could say activity. Someone might take a mechanical approach, but intent, you can't isolate the intent right.

Got a great point, you know, I think, yeah, that intent would come from your innermost being, your your innermost desires, which is not is not reducible to your mind. Like your mind is not identical to your intentionality or or or your love right love. Uh, you know, your love for your wife relates to your mind, and it manifests in thoughts about it, but it's not reducible to or identical to your thoughts about your right thoughts about love. It comes from your from your innermost being.

Yeah, that's actually a good point. People were bringing up the relational argument for like say that trinity. We don't. We don't have to get into depth. But it is interesting how once you point these things out, how even our engagement with let's say love, the act of loving is this participation between persons. There's an activity. And if it wasn't that you would just be able to participate in your own head and say your loved your wife.

Mean, this is what we say about all Western deviations, and even you could include Islam and Protestanism as well, because we would typically say they're worshiping their idea. Yeah, the idea of God.

Right, Yeah, that's a good point. I'm actually going to not listen to the rest of these guys, Jay, is there anything coming up exciting for you, whether it's in the physical or non physical Online.

My mind will be engaging in a zone theory energy consciousness transference to the fifth dimension next week. It's called a sension Millennium. Corey Feldon will be playing Lives going on. I thought about kind of opening up to debate. I don't know if I'll have time to do that today. We just did a long interview this morning. Tomorrow I'll be doing a live stream on Islam with a pasta profit over on his channel Jamie, and that will be

Nice. That should be fun vm as from a sort of Hollywood uncoded occultism view.

Yeah, I have no idea what's happened. I haven't watched any of those kinds of shows since, Like, I think the last one of that I've ever watched was like the whole thing was the super Bowl back when it was like Beyonce Black Lives Matter, and then then Coldplay came out with like giant golden rainbow patch or giant rainbow patches about world government and that was the last super Bowl.

Yeah, I was wondering, like how you're still engage with that stuff, because once you isolate what they're kind of doing, like it almost becomes almost like a gimmick where you almost don't even take it. I think it's serious. I

Well, that's I think that happens at times for sure. I mean I think like Coldplayer, just like you know, you buy them off and they play and they do. They promote rainbows and the New World Order for money. But I mean, if I forgot about the Olympics, I mean that that was very anti Christian occult Jacob, and so the Olympics stuff was pretty crazy.

Yeah, that was a I always thought of that. People asked me, and like some of their defenders were like, well, no, you know, Christianity has these visuals that are downstream from previous visuals and they're just promoting the previous visuals. Well, no, you can't really separate these two as far as how

Like I always, I think some people are committed to being a ritual action against the good. The good. Yeah, and I think there's a lot of low level dumb dumbs that eat it up and think that it dude.

Just art, bro. Yeah, yeah, it's pretty gross. Well, I really appreciate you jumping on if you're if you're doing a space later. I'm sure many of us will show up. The spaces are pretty fun. They have a different sort of nature to them.

I can't get. Yeah, you know it's weird. Yeah. Like so if you're on Twitter, it's like it's its own vibe. If you do a live stream debating with videos on TikTok, it's a whole nother lower IQ level of vibe. Yeah yeah said whereferent audience.

Yeah yeah, so I'm going to do more of those as well.

But experience, I know you're trying to go, but no, no, no, it is like me, it seems like they're crazy.

It hurts my spirit. It's like I resent it and also go well, like you saw. The only way for me to really deal with that in long term doing it is becoming like crystological and going as a character. It's the only way I can do it. You know, I've seen Andrew do it. He can do that and just deal with that. I literally have a limit where I just lose. I lose it, like I can't. I can't do it, So I have to either do a character. But on on Twitter, it's definitely attracts higher level exchanges, you know.

But now that where are you getting your pool of atheists from. Is it from YouTube crowds?

I have no Actually I'm still just starting, so my goal.

Only get breakfast tacos. Did he come from?

Oh oh yeah, yeah, Well I think breakfast tacos is basically from when I did arguments against atheism one, two, and three pretty much was tossed around as a hot potato in the atheist communities like oh, look at this dork. Oh, I can't wait to debunk this, so they eventually got

So of these perish I listened to about half of that of you and him, and then I got to the point where I was like, I can't listen to this guy anymore.

He can't well, he's just yelling and screaming. I'm just not answering very basic questions. By the way, did you want to talk about that really quick? Because I know I sent you his silly stuff and it's like, I don't even expect you to give it a wink.

But uh.

The argument is this, Jay, premise one, everything that we observe to exist comes from previous stuff arises, sorryrises, right, Okay, premise to the universe exists. Conclusion the universe comes from previous rises from previous stuff. Now I went three different angles to completely destroy this. What is the main one? You would would have gone right away from this or from this?

Well right away. It reminds me of what we were talking about when I first came in today with you, which was, well, this seems to be making kind of an almost universal claim about states of affairs. I don't know how you have any access to our knowledge of that. Yeah, so this sounds like a universal law, Like.

He says inductive, he says induction. He said, Jay, I'm using an adoctive argument, right, that's what he says.

I'm using, right, But induction can never get you to your universal state of affairs, right, And he said it's not lawlike.

No, he would say, he's not making an argument of certainty or universal claims about states of affairs. But you have to because to say there's a past, you can't you're not using induction to us to come to the conclusion of the regularity of the past, you have to assume that, right, that there's things.

In other words, he's basically saying to reduce this to absurdity, he's just saying that the stuff that I've ever observed comes from other thoughts, which is basically to say, not much question.

It doesn't. Actually I did a swap out of his argument. If his argument is everything we see today quote stuff, right, because that would be stuff arises from stuff. Okay, stuff arises from stuff. Premise one universe exists, Well, what's the universe? Stuff stuff exists. That's that's pretty much the translation. The conclusion is stuff arises from stelf So you know, he's positing something as an inductive argument when really it's just a circular argument that starts.

With the You could also critique it as really a meaningless statement.

It is, it's just gibberish.

Yeah, so everything, it's like saying everything comes from something and then that produces more things stuff. Yeah, and what is that tall us about the world. Nothing.

It tells us nothing, which is why it's like a parody.

P A. R. I. T.

Y of I think the colomb this is where he's run off with this. Uh, these sort of components that go back in time and have this initial cause or whatever. Stuff comes from stuff. But again, my another critique I had jay is stuff arising from.

Stuff arising as a process.

Yeah, yeah, problem.

You could also.

Are there.

You froze? There? Are you there?

Yep? Keep freezing?

That's okay. Also, basically you could just run through everything that Hume raises as a major issue at critique any position like that, Like, Okay, how do you know that the stuff that you're using as a mental conceptual thing and then you're saying there's a causal relationship of it producing or causing more stuff? How do you know that there's this stuff in the external world? And how do you know that there's actually causation in the external world because you haven't observed that.

So he says circular arguments and tautologies are only allowed. No, we accept tautologies of language. We'd accept using logic, but the justification is what we're really asking for. So, like, even if we granted you some sort of like linguistic circularity, like you know, a tree is a tree, we know what we're referring to, will allow it or whatever? I would disagree with this that when a Christian's a Christian does a circular argument, right, well, we would say and

Me's seeing the point that, like as FDA was saying the other day, I mean, if you're talking about in normal day to day conversations about this or that thing tru or false, you can't commit a circular argument. But when you're talking about the final court of appeal for anybody's worldview or their starting point. Everybody will have a

Right, Yeah, because fallacy is actually referencing a particular kind of system of logic. Where you reject fallacy a circularity like well Emmanuel says, not all circularity ends up being viciously quote viciously or whatever, But that gets into a newer debli.

Yeah, fallacies are not allowed at the normal level of logic and argumentation. But when you ask metalogical questions about how does logic itself work? What's the logic of logic, then everyone will be forced into some sort of self reference saying recursive position.

That's the point, gotcha?

Yeah?

Well, by the way, the guy who just said that, I had a little exchange with him on the UH on this channel and on the X base, and he said he was he couldn't be sure he's not an apple. So I mean, you know, I usually I usually UH start with are you you know, to what extent you're certain you're not an apple? And then we can get into the circularity of Christianity. Cool, Well, everybody who's listening, go follow J Dyer or J Dyer or is it Jay's analysis? What's the title of your And then yeah.

I think I think I'm pretty much in a mood to debate, so we're going to open it up here.

All right, we got Jay in the mood for a debate, So go over there, Big Tech if you want to debate Jay. I know he was on and you click the link. I wanted to go through this with Jay without any interruptions or cross talk. If you want to debate him big tech, go for it. Go over to Jay and and do that is as.

Well as everyone. I'll have it up in the next thirty forty five minutes.

Okay, man, all right, thanks a lot. I'll see Oh yeah, no problem, okay, cool, Thank you Jay, and I'll just check these chats before I head off. I got a fifteen dollars bob chat from Glenn Hall fifteen little Krabby's for a master. Thank you, Thank you for the native krabbies, Native Krabbys. We'll just creat universe. Okay, I've searched that. I got that. Let me just check one more thing over here and uh, and then I'll leave you guys

All right.

Well, if you guys want to watch big Tech, go over to Jay Dyer. Go over there. Now, I'm not gonna send you to a different stream right now because it's not set up, but and hit the like button. There's four hundred and thirty nine of you, now, please hit the like. It really helps.

A lot.

And then I'm gonna go see if there's a I'm gonna go to like a trampoline place or something, you know what I mean. Oh, whoops, I forgot