This video presents a philosophical debate exploring whether God exists, with one guest arguing that time did not begin to exist based on the principle that anything that changes must be in time, and since a timeless phase cannot change into a temporal phase, time must have always existed. The debate also examines consciousness, free will, and the fine-tuning argument, with the atheist guest challenging the theist's position by questioning whether the universe's apparent fine-tuning truly supports divine design or could be explained by natural processes.
Install our extension to search inside any video instantly.
God Isn't Real! Unless... Come debate! [7/21/2026]
Added:What's up, gamers?
That one goes here.
This one goes here.
What's up? What's up? What's up? What's up?
How we doing?
I hope we're all having a good one.
It is Ian time, but was it always Ian time or does it begin to be Ian time?
That's the real question.
Um, what? What the hell?
Okay, maybe we'll just do that. Maybe I'll maybe I'll have the setup like this. Um yeah, one sec. Maybe it would be worthwhile to Well, h I would have if if not for the guest. Um but okay, if you're in that guest request box, make sure that you're 18 or older. Um, I I ask that you be a deist or a Christian or a Muslim or Jewish.
Um, if you're not any of those things, you're probably like a gibberator and I I'm probably fine just not talking. Um, but other than that, uh, feel free to request to join. Um, I ask that you have some reason to think that God exists.
All right, let's go to the very first guest.
Hey, how's it going?
>> Hello.
>> Yeah. How old are you?
>> Uh, I'm 23.
>> And what religion?
>> Uh, I'm a deist.
>> Yeah.
>> Sorry. I'm a theist.
>> A theist. Sure. What makes you think that God exists?
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah. I just uh I just wanted to run some uh uh something like a cumulative argument. Uh >> you go for it.
>> Yeah. Uh so uh so so let me just uh let's start with the foundation of our experience. Okay. Uh let's start with consciousness.
>> Mhm.
>> Um how so so are you a materialist? Do you think that uh do you think that uh you know matter produces consciousness?
>> So I think atheism is compatible with a lot of views on consciousness. I think atheism would be compatible with basically every mainstream view related to consciousness. I think you could be like an atheist and an idealist. You could be an atheist and a physicalist.
You could be an atheist and a dualist.
Maybe you're like an atheist and like a roalian monist. Um I think we have good reason to think that physicalism is true though. I think that the evidence related to causal closure that all physical effects that you know under certain laws of physics like conservation of momentum, conservation of energy that you know there is all of the these physical effects are going to have causes that are elsewhere in the physical system. So because there are some mental events like you know I think of I think of what I'm about to say and then I say it and then there's this like physical event of my mouth moving and me speaking those words. Well, that physical effect must have a physical cause under things like conservation of momentum, conservation of energy. So, it seems to be that mental events are physical.
>> Mental events are physical.
Okay. Um do do you not do you not think that the the idea of like dead unconscious experienceless matter uh you know combining in a particular way to prod produce uh consciousness is somewhat implausible? I think you could run the same argument about computers, right?
You can say, "Oh, you really think that you really think that when you put a bunch of this like non-calculating matter together that suddenly it just starts to calculate?"
Yeah. Basically >> computers. Yeah. So, so the reason why I wanted to start with consciousness is because according to most religions, God is a uh uh God is a mind without a brain, right? So, if we can if I can establish that Yeah. So, if I can establish that consciousness is dependent on not dependent on the brain uh then it uh you know it opens us up to uh the the plausibility of supernatural beings existing. Would you agree? Uh, no. I think you would still have to overcome for you'd kind of have to overcome two things. First, you'd have to overcome like an atheistic idealism.
And second, you'd have to overcome um >> I mean, you would have to overcome as well dualism that you just told that there's like this separate mental and physical realm.
So, it seems like there are just very like even if I'm wrong about physicalism, it just seems like at that point what I would do is adjust my physicalism to one of the other positions.
and and and move towards something more like idealism or pan pansism.
>> Um I think I'd probably move towards like a Russellian monism which includes like pansychism or maybe I'd be well yeah I'd probably be like some sort of like resale monist if I was wrong about physicalism.
>> Okay. Okay.
So I I guess I should probably I should probably try to explain these terms.
Something that I >> this is something I wish I was better at. Um so so physicalism of course is the view that consciousness reduces to the brain. Whereas like a raleian monism view is something like okay at the foundation of reality is like these atoms or at least the foundation of physical reality is these uh various particles and then the particles just have like internal properties that are qualitative.
So I would just add the the qualitative stuff within like the physical stuff. So my position even if I was wrong about just like straight physicalism, I would just adjust to be like a Russian monest.
>> Okay, I see. Um and Ian, do you mind if I call you? Do I mind if Do you mind?
>> That's fine. I don't care.
>> Yeah. uh in a in a somewhat recent interview uh Sam Harris, one of the new atheist said that the intuition that matter produces consciousness is equivalent to the intuition that uh something can come out of nothing. Would you agree with that? He says that it's just not something that we'll ever be able to like grasp. Okay.
>> No. Well, not something that we're we'll ever be able to grasp. I think it's a bit premature for that.
No. And in fact like so I agree that there are like some unintuitive consequences of of viewing like consciousness as something that emerges from the brain. Uh but I think all of the positions in philosophy of mind have implications that are very unintuitive.
I think dualism that there's like the mental the view that there's like the mental substance and the physical substance and that they like interact with each other. I think that view is like very unintuitive. the way that it makes like some some leap >> magically from the mental stuff to the physical stuff. You know, I think kind of all of the views have have an unintuitive part to them, but I think that we have good reason to think that physicalism is true regardless of whether or not it has unintuitive consequences.
>> Yeah, I I totally agree with you uh about the dualism thing. Me personally, I I influence something more like idealism.
Um so uh uh you know what do you think about the the idea that um um you know the idea that matter can produce experience when arranged in a particular way is somewhat equivalent to saying that you know conscious states if arranged in a particular way for example if you think in a specific manner will then be able to produce uh matter. Um, would you say that these are equivalently unintuitive things? Because if you're saying that >> Sure, I understand. Could you say one more time?
>> What are the two things that are equally unintuitive?
>> I I mean, I don't think that it's like >> I don't think that it's like crazy unintuitive to think that the brain is the thing that's producing consciousness.
I think that you have to there are like other unintuitive parts of physicalism that you have to tease out.
Um, but I don't think just the I don't I don't think stating the position back to me is is going to be unintuitive. Like I don't I don't find it unintuitive to think that the brain is the thing that's responsible for consciousness.
>> Yeah. And Sam Harris mentioned this as well. He said it's just, you know, he says that some people just find it unintuitive and some so it it might just be like a a person idiosyncratic thing. But for me personally, I find it really difficult to believe that you know experienceless unconscious matter, the same things that make up tables, chairs and stuff like that, rocks when arranged in a particular way suddenly gives rise to sensation exper I feel like you know do you know who Alex Okconor is?
>> Yeah, I do. Uh however, I mean you know I I don't think that your personal incredility is a good reason for me to change my mind. you know, you just saying like I don't find your view of consciousness intuitive. I don't know.
Like that's not very compelling to me.
Do you have like a like a different argument that you were hoping to run?
>> Yeah, I I get what you're saying, but like to to a certain extent all of our beliefs uh they bottle out on incredul, right? Like if somebody says, you know, prove that 2 + 2 equals 4, it's you're just going to say like, dude, it's just obvious, right? Like it's if somebody just says I I don't see what you mean or prove that the law of non-contradiction isn't real. You would say like dude it's just obvious right there's no way that you can it's it comes >> I think that's unfortunate because I think both of those things are things that can be demonstrated. You can demonstrate the law of non-contradiction via a truth table. And I mean you can demonstrate like 2 plus two to yourself, right? Like you know, wow, it's four.
>> Um maybe maybe you >> I agree like a lot of our beliefs are going to be intuition based, but I think that we adjust our intuitions on things when we're confronted with arguments about them. You know, I used to not be a vegan, but then I was confronted, you know, and intuitively most people think that veganism is not like an obligation, like you don't have to be vegan or that it's like not immoral to eat meat. But, you know, I adjusted that intuition when I heard the arguments for veganism.
They're really good. Um, so then I updated my my view on that. You know, I I changed my intuitions.
>> Yep. Yeah. And yeah, I'm a vegan, too, by the way. I was actually convinced by this guy Alex Aana whom I mentioned and uh you know one of the things which he mentioned about um consciousness was that um uh the idea that um this is just my last argument about consciousness by the way after I'll move on to the next one. But um what he mentioned was the idea that matter when arranged in a particular way can produce conscious experience is somewhat like saying uh oranges or tangerines when arranged in a particular way will give rise to the concept of divorce in the sense that it's a category error. It's just not something that can happen. Would you you >> wait oranges and what oranges and tangerines will give rise to what?
oranges or tangerines and arranged in a particular way would give rise to um the concept of divorce.
>> The concept of divorce.
>> Yeah.
>> No, I don't agree with that at all. I think that like the mental stuff literally stands in like causal chains.
>> You know, presumably if there's like some abstract concept of divorce, it would be like a platonic thing.
>> Um I I think that there's like a pretty good disconnect between these two things. So no, I I don't share the intuition that saying that the brain gives rise to consciousness is like saying that apples and oranges arranged in a specific way gives rise to the concept of divorce.
>> Yeah. Pam. Yeah. I I I think it is kind of like a like a personal intuition type of thing. I I'll move on to my uh my next uh my next argument though and that had to do with uh you know uh reason, logic and free will. I I just want to combine the three of them. So, uh, Yan, do you believe in free will?
>> Depends what you mean by free will.
There's kind of like two definitions of it, or there's I mean, there's way more than two, but there's there's kind of like two positions on it that I think, you know, I think determinism is true, but I also think compatibilism is true.
So, I think that all of our actions that we take are going to be produced by prior states. Um but nevertheless I think that you're free in the sense that you can be held morally responsible that you know it's you can help hold people responsible to the degree that they responded or didn't respond to the morally present reasons in any given circumstance.
So I don't know I think that I'm a compatibilist. I think that you can have free will and also determinism is true.
>> Yes. But then it would be a kind of uh uh would you agree with Chopenhau? You you can uh uh you can do what you will but you cannot will what you will.
>> I think that that's about right. Um although I do think that you can want for things to be different, right? Like I think that you can want to have some shift in your life. You know, maybe you maybe you uh you uh drink a lot and you wish that was different. You know, you can will that be different even if there are days when you relapse and you go back to it. I I I guess I think that you can I think that you can like a higher order. I think that you can uh change what you want to do at a lower order, but ultimately I think that if you trace the causal chain back for all of them, it's going to arrive at uh things that are external to the self. I think that you can hold people responsible to the extent that um when acting from like the like a deep personal self, >> when acting from their personality, you know, they take these actions. I think that's when you can hold people responsible.
So you would say that like praise and blame I I mean even people who do deny free will would agree that um you know arrest you know arresting people just to keep them away from hurting others I think Sam Harris says you know if we could arrest tornadoes and earthquakes you could do that as well but you would hold them morally blame worthy right could you hold people morally blame worthy and praiseworthy >> yeah yeah absolutely and there's like lots of compatibilist literature on this what's this guy's name I think his name is like David Brink think um he defends like a compatibilist view of like retributive justice um where you know people can be deserving of things to the extent that they are reasons responsive you know that we have certain reasons to take specific actions you know maybe the value of this toddler gives you reason to save it from walking into the road or something um and to the extent that that reason is present you know you're morally responsible because you didn't respond to the reasons you know it was your deliberative process that came up with the the thought that you shouldn't do anything. The reason to do something was still nevertheless present. So, you're responsible for that.
>> Yeah. Yeah. I I just feel like if you Yeah. I but I it to me personally it just seems like would do you do I understand you know the the other point of view where people say you know if free will doesn't exist things like praise and blame don't don't make sense because as like wouldn't you say that that's the more common opinion >> uh maybe I don't know actually because I think a lot of philosophers are compatibilists I don't think that that's the you know there luckily there is like a survey on philpapers.org or um Phil Papers >> survey. I wonder what they think about I'd be very curious. Um >> yeah, I I I I've skimmed through that.
Unfortunately, um uh my you know, I I I haven't really read too much uh professional philosophers. My uh my research comes mainly from more like pop pop philosophers Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Neilgress Tyson, those guys and most of those guys whom I've listened to who didn't including the physicists by the way Neil Gres Tyson, Sean Carroll, Brian Green, uh they agree that free will doesn't exist and therefore uh retributive justice doesn't make sense.
Oh, I mean, you know, they they very well might believe that, but like obviously that's not a reason for me to change my belief.
>> You know, just the fact that there are like a lot of people, none of whom are philosophers, who hold this view.
>> That's true. So, Yen, would you say that your thoughts are produced by the uh physical atomic reactions in our brain?
>> This is like quite surprising, but apparently the vast majority of philosophers hold to compatibilism.
Apparently 60% of philosophers or it's um sorry it's like 57.68% of philosophers hold towards uh accepting compatibilism. So it just seems like among professional philosophers the majority opinion on the free will debate just is that free will is compatible with determinism.
So I I definitely don't have a reason to to change my belief on this given the fact that like non- philosophers like a majority of non- philosophers disagree with it.
Yep. And if I'm not mistaken, libertarian free will is the least popular, right?
>> Uh, no, actually, apparently no free will is um >> Oh, wow. Really?
>> Yeah. Yeah. Libertarian free will holds holds like 20% um of professional philosophers and then no free will is 10%.
>> Oh, wow. Okay. Well, uh well, yeah.
Would you would you say that um would you say that the the thoughts which you have are produced by uh the the the physical atoms that make up your brain, the neurons and such?
>> I think that they reduce to them. Yeah.
>> Yeah. And and would you agree that you don't have control over them?
>> Uh no. I think that it depends what you mean by control, right? Like I think that you deliberate and that you respond to reasons and that you make decisions to develop yourself in specific ways given like some state. So I think that in so far as it's your deliberation process that is um evaluating the thoughts and then like selecting the thoughts um even if we want to say that like you're not responsible for having a thought, you're certainly responsible for deliberating on that thought and then like acting on it. you know, it's your deliberation process that decided that it was a good idea to do that.
>> Yeah. But but I the way that I've heard it, the individuals who deny free will argue that even that uh the the choice to deliberate um you know would not have been under your controls to you.
>> Uh I mean the ability to do otherwise >> if all of the atoms in the universe and so on exactly the same. There are really good counter examples to the principle of alternative possibility, the ability to do otherwise. Like for example, you know, let's say that um let's say that inserted into every soldier is like a war crime chip where you know, if they're given the command to do a war crime, they're going to be forced to do that war crime regardless of if they don't want to. I don't know if you've ever seen Star Wars, but this is kind of um there's there's something Yeah. Yeah.
It's like the Execute Order 66. you know, all the clones had like their their like >> uh control chips in them. But let's say that you have like a like a clone who um doesn't need the control chip. He just starts like killing the Jedi. Uh you know, he just chooses to do that.
Doesn't resist it. Makes that choice. Um well, you'd still say that he's morally responsible for it even though he couldn't have done otherwise. You know, if he resisted, he would have been forced to. The fact that he doesn't resist and just chooses to do this means that he's still responsible despite the fact that he doesn't have the ability to do otherwise. So, um these are called um [ __ ] I'm totally blanking on the name.
Somebody in chat will know it. Um it's like a certain type of case. Um but uh these cases are are a good counter example.
>> I I I think I've heard Dr. William Craig mentioned a similar thing, but he used the example of voting. It was still the in the chip example.
>> M has it.
>> Yeah.
Um so um yeah, I would say if if your thoughts are essentially produced by the interactions in your brain and your decisions, um I would say that that person wouldn't be held responsible. Me personally, like would you at least understand the position? Would you say no? I I just don't see where they're going where they're coming from. Well, maybe I could see where you're coming from. Um, but you know, I don't think that that means that there isn't like a compatibilist account of why you should hold these people morally responsible. I still think that you can hold people morally responsible for failing to respond to the morally relevant reasons that were present.
>> Okay. Uh and uh don't you think like even sociological evidence um kind of goes against that the fact like for example we know that if we know that um you know people born in poverty or to abusive parents and things of that nature have a much higher likelihood of you know growing up to uh be more antisocial and things of that nature.
Would you say that that determinative factor kind of shows that we have less free will than we think the fact that we can kind of to a quite large degree determines people determines determine people's actions.
>> Not really because I think that compat I think free will is compatible with determinism. Right? So just pointing to this like I'm I'm going to agree that these people they they were largely shaped by their environments and nevertheless they are responsible for their actions because you know it's their deliberation process that made the decision to do the thing or to not do the thing.
>> Yeah. It's it's I I actually wasn't planning on arguing this because uh I my my other friends who who don't believe in free will usually don't believe in the retributive element and uh like the the fact that the fact that people's environment seem to influence um their life to such a high degree is actually one of the arguments that makes me doubt God more. So >> yeah. Well, you know, this is interesting. I'm actually um I don't know I'm I'm taking classes with a philosophy professor who publishes a lot in philosophy of religion and he's working on this really good argument. I don't know if you're familiar with a a political theorist named John RWS. Um but he's he's like a like a staunch defender of liberalism and one of his big contributions is that >> you know a lot of like your starting position in life is entirely luck dependent. you are are going to be spawned into this world. You're going to have genetics that you are not responsible for and you're going to have um you know like this social environment around you that you're not responsible for. Um and that this is a reason to think that God doesn't exist because if God existed, you wouldn't have all of these unjust inequalities in terms of people's starting conditions. You know, some people are born uh into a place where they will literally starve to death in a couple of days. Uh whereas other people will never have to worry about food a day in their life because of the conditions that they're born into.
You know, some people will have like horrific diseases. Some people will have um you know, genetic abilities the likes of which are completely unparalleled.
And it's it's an inequality, but it's an inequality that these people did nothing to deserve. So, it's an unjust inequality.
Yeah, exactly. Which is why, you know, it's it's this isn't a point that I've usually got the opportunity to debate with my atheist friends because uh they usually they usually agree they usually uh agree that um you know people aren't really morally responsible for their actions because uh they are more or less the product of their environment and their genes. But um yeah, so it's it's uh do do you mind talking about this for a little longer or or do you um >> Yeah, we can move I I probably have to move on to the next guest soon, but yeah, if you wanted to move on to a different topic, I don't know. I have I have >> No, I wanted to talk.
>> Yeah, go for it.
>> Yeah. So my uh my point was well the point that I the reason why I brought up free will because it seems to me that if your thoughts are produced by the physical atoms in your brain um doesn't that doesn't that kind of negate the truth value because atomic reactions really are directed towards the truth right >> what well so what it means to be directed towards the truth is that you have like some sort of mental representation like what propositions do is they represent like some state of affairs you know if I say the cat is on the mat that's representing like a specific state of affairs where there's a cat and the cat is on top of the mat so you know if I with when I believe something I'm taking like an affirmative attitude towards a proposition my mind has a mental representation of this thing and if my mind's representation that I also affirm is in line with reality. Well, then that's a true belief. I'm not sure what the problem with that is.
Well, yeah, you very well could you you very well could uh come to the uh to the appro the appropriate conclusion. But I'm I'm just saying like like there is no real guarantee, right? The reason why you are an atheist is because the atoms in your brain collided in such a way to produce the thoughts that make you an atheist. Whereas a theist is a a theist because the atoms in his brain collided in a particular way to prod make him a theist >> and he believes it just as strongly as you do.
>> Yeah. But the question is you know do any of these thought formation processes do any of them track the truth? And the answer to that is yes. You know, there are ways to go about your belief formation that are going to be truth tracking and there are ways to go about your belief formation that are not truth tracking. The question is whether or not your beliefs stand in like some sort of explanatory relation with like the facts that you're affirming to be true.
>> Yeah. Yeah. And this kind of gets into Have you heard of >> Alvin Plantinger's argument against naturalism? What do you think? I I I I won't be able to uh to put it as square and see, but what do you think about that?
>> Um I think that the argument is interesting. I think that there's there's like a really bad version of this argument that you might hear on the internet sometimes called like presuppositionalism, the transcendental argument for God. I think that Plantagga's um evolutionary argument against naturalism is a more sophisticated version of that.
Basically, the idea that evolution didn't select for it selected for survival and reproduction. it didn't select for us having like perfect like truth knowledge. Um therefore we should like distrust our beliefs. I just don't think that's true. Um I think that we can see the residue of evolution that's present within our um within our cognitive biases, right? We have all these cognitive biases to catastrophize or to ascribe agency to things. you know the the human mind makes a lot of faulty judgments if you ask it to think very quickly. Um but then it holds like a lot of like you can arrive at true judgments by reflecting you know the things the sort of things that we are um that we get value out of having knowledge of. we have senses to detect those things. And then the things that we don't that weren't like evolutionarily advantageous for us to see um things like certain frequencies of light like we can't see certain frequencies of light. It's because they didn't they weren't useful in terms of our survival. Um so we didn't need to see them. So I think that the limitations typically it's not that our brain is producing um these false beliefs other than like knee-jerk like instantaneous circumstances. But then the religious person faces the exact same problem. Um I also think that there are like underlying problems that um under the the views of epistemology that are necessary to run the evolutionary argument against naturalism. It turns out that God's beliefs are unjustified which means that God would be not all knowing.
>> Uh could you could you explain that last point why God's beliefs should be under?
So there's um the way that you get the the argument off the ground is with uh Plantigga's view of knowledge called proper functionalism which is that there are these um properly basic beliefs is what they're called and these are beliefs that are like foundational um in order to have any of your beliefs have any sort of justification these properly basic beliefs need to be true.
Um and uh he holds that one of the things that makes our sense data reliable and our reasoning faculties reliable is that they're it's reliable if it's designed by um like some designer who wants you to have knowledge. You know it's if it's working as intended then it's going to give justification for your beliefs. Which is why they want to say under theism, well, the theist is justified in believing that because God designed your senses and God wants you to have knowledge. Um, but then, you know, under atheism, you're not justified in belie or under naturalism, you're not justified in believing that because nobody designed your senses. So, they can't be working as designed. Uh the problem with this then is that God's reasoning faculties uh and any sort of like sense data that God might have becomes unjustified because God wasn't designed by a further designer. Um so it probably proves more than the theist wants to. It it probably ends up proving that God is not all knowing, that he's unjustified in his reasoning ability.
>> Yeah, that's that's interesting.
uh uh is can I is did you get that from like a an article which he had written or something like that? I would like to >> gosh I I'm taking a class with a philosophy professor and I got that argument from him actually but I I don't want to share I don't want to share his name obviously I'm sorry I'm I'm sure I'm sure that would be useful after I'm done taking classes with him I can >> I can start pumping it >> yeah thanks because what what I was trying So, so you you you don't think that that's you don't think that um >> Oh, wait. Actually, no, sorry. It's um he got it from somewhere else. No, he gets it from Evan Fails. Um there's uh Evan Fails book, Divine Intervention: Metaphysical and Epistemic Puzzles lays out this objection.
>> I I totally forgot that that's where he gets it from.
>> It's It's Evan Fails.
>> Yeah. Uh F A L E L Yes.
>> Yeah.
>> Oh, thanks. I I thought it was pronounc I thought it might have had a more dignified pronunciation but I watched an interview with him and nope it's fails.
>> Yeah because because so like so far throughout my life I've just believed in God uh due to personal experience and it's only recently that I've got like just within the couple of months that I've got uh interested in kind of apologetics. So I'm I'm trying to study philosophy and apologetics and stuff.
>> Sure. Absolutely. Is there anything else? Otherwise, I might move on to the next guest.
>> Yeah. Can can I just uh >> Yeah. Uh can I can I ask what do you think about morality and purpose? Do you think that these are objective?
>> Um yeah, I think that there's Well, okay, here's here's what I'll say at the at the top of the queue. I don't think that uh God could possibly be the source of uh morality. Uh unfortunately, I think that God gets skewered by the Euthifer dilemma. you know, either the morality is independent of God, in which case, well, like God doesn't change that, or um it's it's good, it becomes good after God says that you should do it. Um but if if that's what it is, then God telling me that I should do something doesn't give me a reason to do it. You know, I would need to subjectively decide to listen to what God tells me to do.
>> Yeah. And uh I I think the usual response is God is the good, right?
>> Ooh. But then that commits you to like a super implausible view called divine simplicity.
>> Oh, okay. I'm I I've heard of it, but I'm not sure what that means.
>> It holds that God is identical to all of his attributes. that um God is identical to goodness and that God is identical to love and that God is identical to eternity and that God is identical to all knowledge and that um and it just leads to like absurdities like you end up having to affirm things like well um and not everyone finds this to be an absurdity but I do that you know eternity is identical to love um and I you know I just don't think that's true right I don't think a thing existing but not beginning to exist is the same thing as like the qualitative like emotion of closeness like I just think that these things are different like very different um although the the proponent of simplicity would respond by saying well it's not literal it's like an analogy is like analogous to love but then I mean at that point I don't think you get to solve the euthifro if God isn't good he's just like analogous to good >> yeah I I see what you mean so like would you would you be closer to Uh but but you would consider yourself to be a realist, right?
>> Yeah, I'm a realist. I think that moralist can be objective.
>> Uh so would you are you a utilitarian or no? Like a guy >> because I'm a vegan as well because that's what I mean. I'm I'm a vegan because I I side more with like utilitarian.
I probably fall closest to virtue ethics, although the the one that I think is the easiest to understand. Um I I draw heavily on virtue ethics and also on deontology for the most part. And then I think uh utilitarianism has some role when all of the other things have are like a a similar base. You know, if you have to choose between like one rights violation or like two identical rights violations, well then I think you should pick the one rights violation.
But I don't think utilitarian has like a I don't think utilitarianism comes in before that >> or yeah I I I personally I more with like a rule utilitarian based in uh based on kind of God's nature. I kind of combine both of them.
>> How would it be based on God's nature?
>> Uh in the sense that God's nature is that of a rule utilitarian. So, um I think that you're going to run into like really unintuitive consequences. Like for example, um if if there's like a set of rules, and this is like the good set of rules to do. Uh and you're saying it's God's nature. So basically like whatever God is currently doing is the good thing to do. Well, God's not curing cancer. So it seems like at that point you would have to say that like it it's not one of the rules that you should cure cancer if given the opportunity.
>> Yeah. Well, but but God's the reason why God isn't curing cancer is because he has a he has a higher plan in mind, right? Like that's the >> but he wants us to cure cancer, but he has something broader going on. I I don't think God intervenes in reality as such.
>> Yeah. That just leads to the problem which is that you know if God the utilitarian has decided that there's like good utilitarian reasons to not do this well then you knowing that God exists means that you know that there's like some greater good to not doing this so you shouldn't do it either.
>> Yeah I I get what you're saying. Um yeah uh would you would you think that um consciousness ends after death? Uh, I I'm inclined to think so. I think if like physicalism is true, then definitely, >> but >> so you would bet on most probably.
>> Yeah. But listen, we've been talking for a while. I appreciate the conversation, but I should move on to the the next guest talking.
>> No, no, you don't need to apologize.
I've I've really enjoyed the the conversation with you. Thanks so much for coming on up.
>> Yeah, me me too. Hopefully, hopefully.
Yeah. And I'm sorry to to the rest of the chat for taking up so much time as well. Thank you so much.
>> You're all good. Hey, thanks so much for coming on. Appreciate you.
>> Make sure you're double tapping on that screen, sharing it with your friends, doing all the good stuff. Let's read some supers. Uh Carrie, thanks so much for the tier one sub on Twitch. I appreciate you. Luna, thank you so so much for the Tik Tok galaxy. Whoa, that's pretty cool. I appreciate that.
Um uh Luna, thanks so much for the the Ian curls. I appreciate that. Mattie Meister, thanks so much for the super chat. Maybe Lucifer fell from heaven uh just to finally feel something. It's like one of It's like the eagles when they do like the death spiral. Um I I think that's the word. But yeah, I don't know. That's pretty cool. Well, how it must be like to be an eagle embracing like your your mate in your talons and then you guys just like stop flying and like start falling. Like that that sounds pretty cool actually.
Matthew Matthew Oander, thanks so much for the super chat. Under compatibilist paradigm, could a self-modifying computer program be considered to have free will? Maybe. I think so. I think I don't know. I think that I think that the idea that there's no possible way that you could configure a computer such that it's going to have consciousness is like probably false.
Uh, Fio Games, thanks so much for the super chat. Ian committing to virtuous threshold deontology. That's my favorite thing about threshold dayontology is that it's like I like how how like utterly arbitrary it is, but maybe that's fine. Um, that it's like suddenly all of a sudden it becomes utility time, you know? It's we're doing like the deantology and then when [ __ ] gets real dire, you you tap the emergency button and it's utilitarian time.
Ricardo, thanks so much for the $50 Venmo. That's incredible. Let's get a big big big W for Ricardo.
That's I don't know. That's pretty incredible. Thank you.
Um, philosophical fireworks goth with our intentions. Um, some come with the jisms, uh, while others get the jism.
Uh, rhetorical in nature. Uh, we need legislature for these fanatics. keep on filling up. I might just be an addict. I love the content and the knowledge.
Thanks for all you do, Ricardo. That was very heartfelt and I really appreciate that. Let's get a big W for Ricardo.
Thank you so much. Um, that's very kind of you. I'm glad that I can give you uh something to think about.
Stripeball, thanks so much for super chat. Is there a formal philosophical argument for the idea that God is bounded by his own nature or desires?
Uh, well, I mean, if he goes outside of his nature, then that's a contradiction.
I mean, um, yeah, you'd probably want to look into the stuff related to, uh, problems related to, um, I'll give you a good starting place. Go to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and, uh, read the article on divine freedom. That's a great article on this exact topic, actually. The things that might potentially or might not potentially constrain God's ability to choose.
All right, let's go to the very next guest.
Hey, how's it going?
>> Hey, good Ian. How are you >> doing? Well, doing well. Yeah. What's up? How old are you?
>> Uh, we've talked before. I am 40 years old.
>> Oh, sure. Um, and what religion remind me?
>> Uh, I am Christian.
>> Sure. Uh, what makes you think that God exists?
Well, I guess I I try to figure out first what your threshold is for the need to experience or to prove that God exists. So, is it something that you need to tangibly hold? Or is it >> No, definitely >> something you can feel. Okay. Do you need to feel it? Do you need to see it with your eyes?
>> Certainly. I mean, if I saw it or felt it, that would be sufficient, but it's not necessary. There are other ways that I could arrive at this belief. So, for example, you know, if um this is a trivial example, the the bar is way lower than this. But if the stars in the sky spelled out, you know, made with love by God in every language on Earth, well, certainly at that point, I'm going to believe in God. Um, but all I need is evidence that raises the probability that God exists to above 50%.
And then at that point I I' I'd become a theist.
>> Okay. Well, listen, I don't think anybody can be a theist, right? Because essentially what that is is we all have certain thresholds of who we are and what we believe in terms of a higher being, right?
>> I think that you should say I think you should go tell that to all the theists, right? I think there are a lot of people that are theists.
>> Well, I don't have to. I'm just making my my I don't have to do anything for anyone else. I'm just talking about myself.
>> Sure. So, but you >> but you believe that there's a there's a there is not a definitive red marked line where you either on one side or the other you can have a it's it's not binary, right?
>> I think it kind of is, right? Like either you believe in God or you don't.
>> Well, you're you're saying that you absolutely don't believe that God exists. However, you want to see proof of it. Hence the understanding that wast >> Well, you're saying that if I had evidence that God existed, then I would change my mind, right?
>> Yeah. I'm not saying that I absolutely don't believe in God. What I'm saying is that I'm open to the evidence, but right now I think we have good reason to think that he doesn't exist.
>> Do you think though that there is a threshold that doesn't exist? Like you can be at zero to 100 and everybody has it's it's not binary. There's some things where oh I kind of feel it exists but it it doesn't. I think that you can have uh like varying degrees of credence. But I think the point where you say that you'd believe something is when you hold like a 50% likelihood belief in it. You know if you hold uh that it's more likely than not that it is true then I just think that that's beliefing it.
So 50% versus 50% is binary, right?
>> Yeah, I I do think that this is a binary, right? Like either you believe it or you don't. You can have varying degrees of credence in the proposition, but I think ultimately either you believe it or you don't.
>> You literally just got done saying literally 15 seconds ago, it's not binary.
>> I don't think I said that. I think I said that it is binary. That there's there are like various degrees of credence. Well, >> and then after you hit the 50%, I think that that's just what a belief is is when it's more likely than not.
>> Okay. So, that's fine. I mean, I guess that's the the reason why the word faith exists is uh in terms of a a dictionary word, but it's just one of those things, right?
So, it's like, okay, I have faith in something cuz I have a little bit more of an understanding of it, but I haven't seen it yet. But for some reason, I think you're trying to make an an argument that faith is binary. You either believe or you don't.
>> Well, I think belief is binary. You might notice how the word switched just now that it switched from faith to belief. Um, I think that belief is binary in the sense that either you believe or you don't. I think that there are belief like states. Maybe you want to say like your credence in a proposition. I don't think credences are binary. I think credence in a proposition is a sliding scale. Um, but I mean, you know, it also if if we're just talking about like strength of belief, um, obviously, >> I think you have stronger beliefs or like weaker beliefs, but the question of whether or not you believe it is just when you think that it's more likely than not.
>> Have you ever been to the Philippines?
>> No.
>> Okay. So, you haven't been to the Philippines. Do you believe the Philippines exists?
>> Yes.
>> Because why? Uh because my ex-girlfriend was Filipino and she uh told me about all the times that she's been there and she showed me all these pictures.
>> But you haven't been there, right?
>> Yeah. I don't think you need to physically go somewhere or see something uh in order to know that it's real.
Right. I explained this to you at the beginning of the conversation that I don't think you need to see God physically to know that he's real.
>> However, what I'm trying to explain to you is is that you haven't been there yet.
>> Mhm. But you know it exists in some way, shape, form, or fashion. That's all I'm saying. Just trying to get us to the point of for us to be able to debate in a way where when you're trying to use logic and philosophy, I'm using the same thing. And then from there, I want to know, okay, so you have faith that the Philippines exists.
>> It's not faith. I have evidence.
>> Well, you haven't been there.
>> I don't think you need to see something to have evidence for it. I explained this to you earlier, right? I'll explain it a third time. You know, the reason why I don't believe in God isn't because I haven't seen him. You know, I think that if I have not seen God, but my credence that God exists hits 50%, well, at that point, I'm just going to believe that God exists, I I don't think that you need to see something to have evidence for it. I think that there's evidence for things that you don't see.
>> Well, okay. First off, you've never been there. And it's almost like the people that are kind of like uh the flatearthers and all that kind of stuff.
That's kind of crazy to me. But what you're really saying is is I've never been there, but I have evidence of it cuz I've seen it, I felt it, I know somebody, right?
>> Well, I have evidence for it on account of um you know, if it's on every single map that I've ever encountered, but it's not a real place that really exists.
Well, at that point, there would just need to be like some grand conspiracy to deceive us about these. And those are intrinsically unlikely.
>> So basically what you're saying is is that people that feel, see, or understand things that you've never seen before, you're calling them liars or idiots because they have seen things or felt.
>> What did I say that that would imply that? That seems like a straw man.
>> It's it's not a straw man. You're strong.
>> Can you summarize back to me what I said that made you think that that's my position? Your position is because it's of this earth and you've never been there, but you've seen evidence of it. But what you want to do, the straw man for you is because you haven't seen it or felt it or or experienced it. It doesn't exist until you see it.
>> This is like the polar opposite of what I'm saying. I think I've said this like three times now. if you want. Okay.
Maybe um maybe there's some focus.
>> Maybe there's like a memory thing that's taking place here. So, what I can do um I'll do this just for you. Uh I will >> put it on the notepad.
>> I'm just going to put it on the notepad so that we don't forget it. Um I do not think that you need to see something or feel something in order to have evidence for it.
However, if I don't see it and feel it, it doesn't exist. Therefore, show me it exists.
>> That's not what I believe. That's not my stance.
>> Well, tell me differently then. Why don't you believe in front of you? Like, my actual stance is literally on the screen in front of you.
>> Okay. So, Okay, let me read it out loud so we can all just do some critical thinking here. Okay. I do not think that you need to see something or feel something in order to have evidence for it. Now, okay, great. However, why are you arguing with people that believe in God?
>> Yeah, because I think that the belief is false.
>> Why?
>> Because I think that there's good defeaters to it.
>> Type T type it type down why you don't believe God exists.
>> That's fine.
>> Break it down.
>> Um, either God is eternally creating or not eternally creating.
>> No, no, no, no, no. You've did this before. You're wanting to put You're wanting to put >> I thought you wanted the proof.
>> No, no, you're wanting the proof. I'm just telling you, you're wanting it on your terms.
>> Ask me. You asked me to give the proof and I started giving it to >> the Philippines doesn't exist until somebody buys me a ticket and I can fly over and I can put my feet in the sand.
>> Okay. If your debate strategy relies on like strawmaning my position, I mean, I've already put it on the whiteboard. I can direct you back to the highlighted portion where it says I do not think that you need to see or feel something in order to have evidence for it. So every time you try to ascribe these views that I don't hold to me that you know I think you need to like see or feel the Philippines in order to know that the Philippines exists or have evidence that the Philippines. That's not my stance.
>> Okay. Then let me take your statement and say I believe that I have felt, seen, and saw things that have evidence of God. So I just took all the negative interviews like all the negatives out.
Yeah. Like what?
>> Oh, do you want me to go ahead and like see that's the thing, right? So you're you're being a hypocrite right there. Do you want the evidence?
>> Like you actually haven't done that, right? Like you Okay. No, no. You're wanting the evidence.
>> I do want the evidence. Correct. Yeah.
The evidence doesn't need to be something that you've seen and felt, right? As I'll I'll direct you back to the statement, you know, the highlighted one. I do not think that you need to see something or feel something in order to have evidence for it. Um, when I ask you for evidence for God, it doesn't need to be something that I can see and feel. It doesn't need to be something that you've seen and felt.
>> Other other evidence is fine.
>> Well, okay. Time out. What are you talking about? You're literally saying touch, taste, feel, see. Right. Five senses, >> right? So, what are you talking about? I don't need the evidence. But there's for some reason you need the evidence.
>> Whoa. Sorry, that's a straw, man. I never said that this is the only kind of evidence. This is exactly the opposite of what I'm saying.
>> I don't think that you need to have like sensory evidence for a thing. I think that there's evidence for a thing other than sensory evidence for a thing. I think that you can engage in like a priori reasoning or for example you can run like a cosmological argument. You can notice that some things come into existence and then you can reason that well because everything that comes into existence there's like some thing that produces it. Well then therefore you know there everything that begins to exist must have a cause and the there can't be like an infinite regress of causes. So there must be a first cause and then you can reason about the properties to arrive at the conclusion that it's like a personal god. Like there are just ways to try to motivate a belief in God that make no reference in any way, shape, or form to like sensory experience.
>> Okay. Well, that's fine. That was great.
That was a great speech. Let's do it this way. Okay.
>> Yeah.
>> So, you are on the pinnacle right now of human understanding, right?
>> I do. You understand all things.
>> I I I would never describe myself that way and I never did. Then why are you trying to have evidence that you >> I'm not what Listen, if you say straw man one more time that that's just a nice little word. I'm not straw manning.
All I'm saying is >> you know without a doubt God does not exist.
>> I think that there are successful deductive proofs.
>> I think that in order for these to be incorrect, there would need to be some premise that's incorrect. But unfortunately all the premises are like pretty good.
>> Okay. So, but you said that. So, basically, we talked about that fine line, right? 50/50. So, you're on So, but you have you're not 50/50, right?
>> You maybe let's call it a percent.
>> I'm not 50/50. If I was 50/50, then I'd probably just believe in God.
>> No, you're you're not zero and you're not 100.
>> I'm at basically zero. I think one of the premises would need to be false.
>> Can't be basically zero.
>> Yeah. Yeah, let's do it. Yeah, I'll defend zero.
You can't be basically zero though because you said you either believe or you don't.
>> That's fine. Yeah. Well, sorry. I said that I said that there's a various credences. If you recall, you know that credences are a sliding scale. So, if you're asking my credence in God's existence, it's basically zero.
>> Well, no, you >> but if you're asking like zero, like is the belief a zero or a one? The belief is a zero. I don't believe in God.
>> Okay. So, but it binary you're either a one or a zero.
>> Yeah.
>> So, you're a zero.
>> Yes.
>> You can be a one though.
>> You could be a one.
>> If you believed in God, you'd be a one.
>> Okay. So, that mean binary means you're either if or no.
>> Yes or no?
>> Yes or no. Yeah.
>> Okay. So, there's no if.
>> You said if. I didn't say if.
>> No. Well, I'm saying there's no if for you is what I'm saying.
>> What do you mean there is no if? Can you elaborate on that?
>> Yeah. So, binary, yes or no? Right.
>> So, there is an if, right? Like, if the premises are true, then I would or if the premises are false, then I would reevaluate it. But, you know, I'm also at a one on all the premises. So, >> what you're one on all the premises, meaning yes, I I can listen to the premises.
>> Like, I affirm. So, so I have an argument. And I have multiple arguments against God's existence and I I think that the premises are true.
>> So unfortunately they just necessitate that the conclusion is true as well.
>> Okay. So then let's just go back from anything religion based and let's just talk about the cosmological argument.
>> Yeah, let's do it.
>> Okay. So now I understand with any religion there is no exclamation explanation for the creation of things.
>> But however, you do not have an explanation either.
>> Okay. How do you know that I don't have an explanation?
>> Well, I I haven't heard one except for the big bang.
>> And because you've never heard it, that means it doesn't exist.
>> Answer the question. You might notice we are both on the level playing ground that we do not understand how eternity everything cosmologically all matter we have no understanding how it was created right >> uh I don't know why I would think that it is created as opposed to just like an infinite regress >> what does that mean >> so before today is a day before every time is another time >> what we're talking about just atoms and matter matter. What are you talking about?
>> Yeah. I think that there's past infinite regress that there's like these slices of reality. You know, matter is in one configuration right now. Wait a couple seconds. It's in a new configuration right now. I think that there's an infinite regress of configurations.
>> Who created?
>> It's an infinite regress. There is no first slice.
Okay, then honestly that's my first understanding of how you might believe in God. So that's great. I appreciate >> disprove of God. So it's kind of strange that you'd think that that's like a reason to believe.
>> How is it a disproof if there's if the universe is eternal then God didn't create it? Because if it doesn't get brought into existence, then God can't bring it into existence.
>> Touch your hair for me.
>> Why are you trying to like [ __ ] me? Like what what is this?
>> No, touch your hair. Touch your hair or something of matter. Where did it come from?
Um well I came from my my parents if that's what you're asking. Are you asking like where the are you asking like where the the matter itself came from?
>> Yeah.
>> Oh I think that the matter is going to be uh brought about via energy getting transferred among various particle fields.
>> Where the energy come from?
>> I think the energy is eternal. You might recall your physics class energy can't be created or destroyed.
>> Okay. So but you're saying eternal.
>> Yeah. But everything has a starting point, right?
>> That's a blunder. Otherwise, you'd have to say that God is a starting point.
>> You want to say that everything Oh, sorry. Actually, you want to say that everything that has a starting point has like a cause to it. You don't want to say everything is a starting point.
Otherwise, then God would have a starting point. So, then God's not the creator.
>> What I said was you and I have both the same understanding. if you'll listen to what I'm saying instead of getting argumentative. I said, "You and I both do not understand how."
But for some reason, you want me to prove that I understand how God created everything. All I'm saying, >> I want you to give the evidence for why you believe in it. I didn't ask you, by the way. By the way, you'll you'll recall I never asked you the question uh via what mechanism does God create? I'm fine ascribing to the theist that they hold that God is all powerful such that if God exercises his powers to create that creation exists. I'm fine holding that that's consistent for the theist.
>> But the same thing exists in terms of what you are trying to explain to people is that one person submits to that okay God did it and you're just saying I don't know but it just exists energy. Do you understand how critical that is?
>> I am making like Well, first of all, I I don't know what the hypocrisy there is.
Second of all, I didn't claim that. I do think that there are affirmative demonstrations that the universe is past eternal.
>> Okay, I just am asking the question who created it. I don't know if error that presuppose, it's a loaded question even it presupposes that there is a creator.
I don't grant that there's a creator.
>> There's no creator.
>> Yes, it's an infinite regress. There is no starting point.
>> Doesn't it just make your head spin like there's no there's no creator. However, we're here.
>> Yeah. So what? Why would that be hard to understand?
>> Because I don't understand what you're telling me.
>> That might just be a lack of creativity on your part.
>> I don't think so. Tell me again. I I just hear energy and all of this other stuff. Please explain to me where the world came from. I think that the world always existed.
If by the world you mean the universe, >> how did you how did it exist?
>> What's that question asking?
>> I I don't know what how does it exist?
>> Wait, what what question did I ask you?
>> I didn't ask you how did God create.
What's the how question that I asked you?
>> What you were trying to do is this.
Okay.
>> Sorry. Wait. I I want an answer to that.
What was the question that I asked you?
>> I asked you the question.
>> Okay. I didn't ask you anyh how question. So when you say, "Well, you asked me the same question." I didn't.
That's a lie.
>> And this is not a good look, man. You just got to chill out for a minute.
>> I mean, I agree it's not a good look.
Uh, you know, maybe you're right. I do need to chill out. But, you know, it's because of how one-sided this debate's been.
>> I I don't know about that. But anyways, I'll tell you this much. I believe in one thing. You believe in another thing.
You believe we always existed.
Everything has always been >> always will be.
>> Not quite.
>> I think that the universe has always existed. I think that the universe changes over time. I think that there's like one some totality of energy and quantum fields and that over time it changes into different configurations.
So there are new things that come into existence but always within the universe.
>> But where did it start, Ian? It doesn't have a start. That's the position.
>> Well, then that's that's an understanding at least. Maybe it's a very un like it's very >> You should say I believe in God again. I That one went really well the last time you tried it.
>> Well, I'm not saying that. All I'm saying is the uneducated might believe that it's God. You believe in the same >> what the uneducated might believe that if the universe always existed that is it never got brought into existence that God might have brought it into existence. I agree. The uneducated might believe a contradiction. I don't know how that's an indight of my position.
>> It's not an Okay. So, do you mind if not interrupting me? Do you want to be respectful?
>> Uh, it depends. I mean, if you like straw man me, I'm probably going to interrupt. But if you're saying things that aren't straw manning me, then that's fine.
>> Okay. So, one guy who never went to college and one guy who went to college.
One guy says, "God created the universe.
The Bible says God created the universe.
He was and he is and he forever will be." And you're saying the exact thing, but you're putting a mentality on it that somehow someway you can't explain where the universe started and all that.
Neither can the Christian >> or the Buddhist >> or the Hindu >> or whatever.
>> Yeah.
>> What what do what what what is the difference?
>> Let's say let's say that we have we have two people you know um we have one who graduated college he says proudly horses exist and one that doesn't graduate college uh who says unicorns exist. And then, you know, we have you who comes over, Carl Bismar, and says, "Well, I mean, you know, you guys both believe in something that has four legs, um, that has like a tail, you know, something that's strong, something that's like sturdy, something that could compare, uh, that that could carry like a human, uh, into battle maybe. So, kind of I think your belief in horses is the same thing as this guy's belief in unicorns.
That's basically more or less what what just happened." No, what just happened and I'll just go ahead and clarify it for all of your audience and for you yourself. Okay, don't interrupt me.
>> You can't tell me where matter in the universe began. Neither can >> anybody.
>> Excuse me, sir.
>> You have you have an uninterrogated presupposition in that statement, which is that it came from somewhere to begin with. I don't grant that.
>> You're telling me that it always existed.
>> Yeah. What's the critique of that?
>> Where did it come from?
>> That's a category error. If it always existed, then it doesn't come into existence.
>> Then you're making your explanation for God. What are you talking about, man?
>> God's a mind. The universe isn't a mind.
>> Okay. Well, then now you're bringing what you think is the universe into physical realm. And that's why we're having this issue in the >> physical realm.
>> The universe is a physical realm, but you're bringing it into the mentality of what supposedly you believe in.
>> You just don't have the answers to >> Sorry. Wait, wait. What's one answer that you think that I don't have?
>> Where did How did we begin?
>> How did we Are you asking humans?
>> Are you asking the universe?
>> Either way, because one one is >> we began at the same time that you stopped beating your wife. You know, when did you stop beating your wife, Carl?
>> Oh my gosh, that is without a doubt the >> When did When did you When did it stop, Carl? or is it still ongoing?
>> When did you come out gay?
>> When did it stop? Yeah, exactly right.
You get the idea, right? It's it's a false presupposition baked into it.
>> How is it, >> you know, you're when challenged with a false presupposition. When you ask when did it begin, that presupposes that it did begin?
>> I don't grant that it begun. That's the very thing that my position rejects.
>> You you just say it always existed.
>> Yeah.
So when you ask a person of faith, when did God start everything?
>> That's not why I think that God doesn't exist.
>> But you're you're using the how am I not why is it that >> you're switching from an internal critique to an external critique.
>> At first you ask me when did it begin to exist the internal critique and I say that's mistaken. I don't think that it began to exist. Then you switch to the external critique and you say, "Well, the theist says the same thing." But that's not an argument against my position. That's no inconsistency on my part.
>> I don't think that when they say God always existed, that the problematic thing is like the always existed. I think things can always exist. I just don't think that this thing God always existed. In the same way, you know, you can think that things with four legs exist, but you know, that doesn't mean that you're committed to saying unicorns exist. fourlegged all that crap. Okay, just listen.
>> All I'm trying to do is tell you that you are on the same level as the people that have faith in God because you don't know anything and we don't know anything.
>> Is there a disproof of my belief?
Because I have a disproof of theirs.
>> No, actually I'm just I'm what I'm trying to establish is you are on the >> I'm on a higher level if there's not a disproof of my position, but there is a disproof of theirs. That would make me on a higher position, I think. No.
>> Like evidentially speaking, >> would would you like to listen? Okay, I want to make sure you understand this.
All I'm saying to you is that a person that doesn't believe God exists but cannot explain where the universe started and how matter started.
>> That's a false presupposition.
>> It's not. You cannot >> Does that question presuppose that the universe started?
>> Can you please stop interrupting me for >> Can you please answer the question? I know you don't like answering questions.
Maybe you're physically incapable yet.
It's because you don't have an answer because it exposes how duplicitous you're being.
>> Just answer the question.
>> Ian, you did this last time and I'm telling you, man, you you've got to understand. I know Tik Tok's great, but you have to sit here for a moment and be challenged, okay? And stop interrupting me.
>> I got to hold myself back.
>> Be be a gentleman.
>> Oh god, the button's sitting right there. I can't do it. Can't do it. Won't do it. Okay. Yep.
>> Be be a gentleman. You're saying you don't know how creation was created, right?
>> Uh I'm saying I don't think that creation was created. That this is a false presupposition.
>> That when you say the claim, when did creation begin? That's like me saying when did you stop beating your wife? In the same way that when did you stop beating your wife presupposes that you started beating your wife at some point that that's like a thing that's happened in the past. When did creation begin?
assumes that there is a beginning.
>> Listen, Ian, I didn't want to be confrontational. All I'm trying to tell you is is that the the people that believe in God believe in the fact that they can't explain how all things were created and who created God in the very same format that you can't explain where everything came from. And you just say it's infinite. Well, there's no such thing.
>> Oh, wait. That disproves God. Wait, wait. Okay, wait. Let me let me show how that disproves God. Nothing is infinite.
>> Uh premise to if God exists, >> then God is in what I'm saying about that.
>> Therefore, God doesn't exist. You just disproved your own god.
>> I didn't disfin dude. Quite literally, you just snapped your god out of existence. You're like Thanos. Wait, so which of these two premises would you reject? Would you reject premise one that nothing is infinite or premise two that if God exists then God is infinite? Which of those premises would you reject? Just be just because you have a screen doesn't mean what what I'm trying to explain to you is is that you're saying that there's no infinity, there's no heaven.
>> However, you can't explain to me how we became >> Wait, sorry.
>> You're you're basically saying, >> please, Carl, please. I just want to know. Do you agree?
>> I'm not going to do that.
>> Okay, Carl, there's no reason to be terrified of the notepad. The notepad is your friend. It allows us to engage logically. You're saying that nothing is infinite. But you're saying everything's infinite.
>> You just said nothing is infinite.
That's a quote from you.
>> Yes. Okay. Well, I apologize because I'm not infinite myself because apparently I'm just >> Where did we come from, Ian?
>> The universe? Is that what you're asking?
>> Yeah. Where did the universe come from, Ian?
>> The universe always existed.
>> Okay. Where how did it always Listen, man. You're You have to start understanding. You're gonna lose a lot of credibility if you cannot. You don't have to have the answer, but at least give the audience back me.
>> I'm like I'm baffled. You're you're like using like the cop tactics like you got to things are looking really bad for you. You know, you better start you better start talking, you know, otherwise things are going to get even like what?
>> You're in no position to be making demands from me and I'm not going to take debate advice from you.
>> I'm just telling you that I'm trying to make the comparison. I'm not even trying to get you off your position. I'm just trying to tell you you're in the same seat as somebody that believes in God.
>> I disagree.
I think that there's a notable difference between my seat and their seat, which is that, you know, from where I'm sitting, I have a disproof of God's existence, but from where they're sitting, they don't have a proof of God's existence.
>> Well, then this has been a really good understanding. But again, you're telling me everything was always always.
Ironically, you're quoting Genesis.
God always was and always will be.
Except if you replace God with universe, you're saying the exact same thing, man.
What What What do What are we debating about? Is it make you that uncomfortable to just say, "Uh, we we all don't understand it." How about just this?
Here's my argument. We all don't understand it.
>> So, here's the here's the just proof of God's existence.
>> Answer my question. We all don't understand. You didn't. That's not a question. Uh, you're an idiot.
>> Do we all understand it?
>> You said Oh, is that the question? Do we all understand it?
>> Do you understand it? Do I >> Do I understand what?
>> It's disingenuous, man.
>> You can just ask me like the proposition or like the like the subject area that you want to know if I understand or don't.
>> I mean, you're an educated person. You understand, right, what I'm saying, but you're trying to defer, which is absolutely disingenuous.
>> What's the thing that you're asking if I understand?
>> Do you understand at all?
>> I understand some things.
>> I didn't ask if you understand some things. I understand some things.
Apparently, I understand unicorns. I'm asking you, do you understand it all?
>> Do I understand everything? No, I only understand two things. that contradictions don't exist and that God's existence entails contradictions.
>> That's all I need to know.
>> Okay. So, when I used Genesis and I said God always was and always will be. If I replace God, >> it doesn't Genesis.
>> Okay. If I replace that, >> if you know that of offering, >> okay, do you want to do you want to interrupt me and just be a absolute ass?
Well, I just think it's like worthwhile to point out that actually it sounds like you're not even very familiar with your own scripture.
>> Always will be.
>> That's not what Genesis says.
>> Point it out.
>> We can read Genesis 1 if you'd like.
You're not going to find always was and always will be. There's like an in the beginning, uh, you know, God hovered over the waters and then he crafts the waters.
>> Hang tight. I have to >> in order to get like the God is the end and the beginning stuff. I think those come from other books >> or that he always was or always will be.
>> Okay. So gosh, >> I agree. I think that that quote is in the Bible. I'm like 70% sure that it's not in Genesis, though.
>> Okay. Well, if it's in the Bible, then that's what people go off of. All I'm trying to >> Genesis.
>> Okay. Okay. Thank you. That's very nice of you. You're so more important and smart than all.
>> I didn't say that. I don't know where this inferiority complex is coming from.
>> No, it's not. It's your snide demeanor.
Honestly, like >> you must not spend a lot of time around people with autism then.
>> Oh, okay.
We're going to go there. Okay.
>> Yes.
>> Yeah. You think my affect person make on TikTok? You think that my affect is like insulting towards you. You know, that's kind of a you problem.
>> I don't have no problem with. The only thing I have a problem with is that if you have autism, okay, then you need to have absolute without a doubt 100% focus, right?
>> What? What are you talking about?
>> Do you have focus?
>> I I focus on you.
>> Do I have absolutely 100% focus on like everything at all times? Obviously not.
What are you talking about?
>> Well, you're on TikTok and you you want to debate with people, right?
>> Yeah, I enjoy debate.
>> You're playing the [ __ ] card now with me.
>> I What the You You need to stop saying that one, Carl. You should phase that one out of your vocabulary. In fact, I don't even know if there was ever a point in time where it was like appropriate to call autistic people that. I have three siblings, okay, that all have one for an effect, okay, has Down syndrome. The other one has autism.
I take it very seriously.
>> I'm skeptical whether or not you could call them that word.
>> Supporting special for sure that. But like, >> so don't you ever do that to me.
>> Whoa, whoa, whoa. Grandstanding is not the winning rhetorical move at a time like this. You should >> You pulled the A card, bro. You pulled the A card.
>> Well, you did an A. I I don't know what to say. Like, dude, okay, this is this is a good look, right? I I will say one thing. I do not have the patience. You have the infinite patience, but I don't get paid for this.
You do.
>> Okay. Well, maybe maybe there's like some like justice there, right? Like, >> no. No, there's no justice in any of it.
All we're trying to do is have a conversation, but you cannot be somebody that will actually say, "Okay, Christians, everybody that believes in God doesn't know where we all came from." And for some reason for you though, when I say you don't know where everything came from, you'll come up with a it's an argument that makes me so frustrated because it's like, "What are you talking about? You're telling me infin infinity existed because it existed. It existed. I'm trying to figure out why. My argument right now is people that believe in God, people that don't believe in God don't know where we came from.
>> Well, so why is that so hard for you to admit?
>> Well, so so you should check this one out. Um, if time began to exist, then a timeless phase changes into a temporal phase. Anything that changes is in time, but the timeless phase is not in time.
Therefore, time did not begin to exist.
Because if it did begin to exist, then this timeless phase would change, which would mean that the timeless phase is in time. But obviously, the timeless phase is not in time. So time did not begin to exist.
>> Okay. I think so. Basically, the watch maker never existed. Just time.
>> Yeah. Time always existed. Other things also always existed, but time always existed.
>> Okay. Well, then I I I don't that that what without a doubt is almost kind of to a point where you're kind of almost like a narcissist because you're just belittling the conversation.
>> You think that it's narcissistic to give formal arguments.
>> You just have to say that every philosopher that's ever lived who's given formal arguments is a narcissist.
>> Okay, write mine down here.
>> Yeah. Oh, wait. You don't want to. This is going to be embarrassing for you, Carl. It's going to be like >> No, start. Go ahead.
>> Oh, god. Let's go.
>> I apologize to everyone who knows what a syllogism is. Yeah. Go for it.
>> Okay. Number one. You ready?
>> Yeah.
>> The universe existed always.
>> Granted, >> God created the universe because he existed always.
>> Created the universe because he existed always.
Number three, >> don't grant the second one, but Sher, what's number three?
>> The universe and God can be interchanged.
>> Don't grant the the third one. And if you think that the third one's true, you can't be a Christian.
>> Number four. You ready?
>> Yeah.
>> We both do not know the origin of humanity in existence.
Don't grant the fourth one seems to have a false presupposition baked into it that there was an origin of existence and I think that we do know uh the origin of humanity.
>> No, I'm talking about the origin of existence.
What what are we doing here?
>> Yeah, I think that's mistaken.
>> Number five. Number five.
>> Yeah.
because I have not seen it or felt it or touched it or tasted it.
It does not exist until I experience it in any faculty that I need to prove me wrong.
>> I don't grant the fifth one. That's the opposite of what I believe.
>> It's 100% what you believe because you're just >> want me to I I had it written up. I thought that I thought that maybe it had >> Go for it.
>> Um I thought that maybe there was like some sort of um I don't know. I thought that you wouldn't need it anymore, but I can I can write it again.
>> No, go for it though. Explain to me.
Yeah, I do not think that you need to have sensory data for a thing >> in order to have evidence for it.
>> That's not true. You actually brought up Stanford research on sensory data by the way >> in your last argument.
>> When >> when the last person, but I don't remember doing that.
>> You did. In fact, I looked it up.
>> Which one?
the last person before me.
>> What was the specific study that I brought up?
>> The sensory data thing from uh let's see here. What's his name here? Uh >> you're talking about the fill papers survey.
>> I hope you don't mean the fill paper is survey.
>> No, that's not what I mean. It doesn't matter. Keep going. Go for it.
>> Oh yeah. I move off of it quick.
Hopefully nobody realizes that you blundered again.
>> No, I didn't blunder. What was the guy that you referenced that was What was his name? I don't remember it right now.
You're the You're the full-time guy. So, >> I have no idea. What's the claim? I can tell you who the guy is if you tell me the claim.
>> Who is the person you gave the name?
I'll just look up my search results real quick because apparently you want to play dumb. You actually did this. You >> I very well may have. I have no memory of doing this.
>> Okay. Um >> I don't know what you're talking about given the information at least. I very well may have. You know, you might >> totally help me out.
>> Sensory data, right?
>> I don't remember doing that. I mean, we're talking about like qualitative experience that's relevant to philosophy of mind, but >> you did that literally just now though, right?
>> Sensory data.
>> Mhm.
>> I don't think so. I don't know. Would you can you give me like the specific instance? Like we talked about sensory data specifically how I don't think that that's the only form of evidence.
>> Okay, hang tight. I'll find his name real quick. I apologize.
So s it sucks that you should have this up. You bring it up.
>> I have no idea what you're talking about is the problem.
You know, I wish I knew what you were talking about. I don't know what you're talking about.
>> Hang tight. We'll find it. It's fine.
Keep going. Keep doing what you're doing.
>> Um I I don't know, man. It's a debate takes two people.
>> Let's see here.
>> Does anyone Does anyone in chat remember? I have no idea. I remember bringing up the the field paper survey talking about like compatibilism.
There's like the conservation of energy, conservation of momentum argument, like the causal closure argument.
Um, but then that one didn't site a study. That one just cites like laws of physics. Like, you know, the argument from my professor, Evan Fails, or Evan Fails isn't my professor, but like the >> No, no, no. That's who you brought up.
Evan Fails. I apologize. That's the guy.
>> Yeah, that's a that's a philosopher.
>> No, you Okay. Well, you brought that up in the last argument.
>> Yeah. What does that have to do with sensory data?
>> You literally just got done talking about sensory data.
>> What about it?
>> You brought it up.
>> No, I didn't. It's all on recording.
>> You didn't bring up >> You brought up sensory data.
>> No, >> it's all on recording. You can't lie.
>> Ian. Ian, if you want me to. This is going to look bad for you, bro. Okay.
>> I'm not going to tell you that you brought up sensory data.
We talked about this literally specifically specifically how it's not typed in right there need to have evidence.
>> I do not you typed it in but I do not think that you need sensory data for a thing in order to have evidence of it.
Yes. That you don't that's not necessary. You need not have sensory data in order to have evidence for something.
>> Okay. Well then I'm a liar I guess.
Right. You didn't bring it up but apparently you did. The only sense that I brought it up is to explain that I don't think you need it. I don't think you need sensory data to have evidence for something.
>> You don't understand the concept of sensory data.
>> Wait, wait, Carl, let's let's level with each other. You know, we've known each other. We're we're good friends. You know, is there a reason why you can't represent my position honestly?
>> I I don't think you're representing your position honestly. And >> what's one thing that I'm being dishonest about?
>> Be okay. Because >> you think I'm lying when I say these things?
>> Do you do you want to not interrupt me or do you just want to go ahead and be the guy?
>> It depends. If you start like misrepresenting me, I'm going to jump in because I think you might be mistaken.
>> I got two words out and you're interrupting me. Go ahead. You tell us what to do, man. You're >> No. Yeah, go for it. Well, I'm telling you, you know, you can you can talk. You can put the screen back >> tell me whatever you want to tell me, but if you start misrepresenting me, I'm going to interject and say that's not what I believe.
>> Can you put the screen back up?
>> Yep.
>> Thank you.
>> Okay. So, all I said, here's my argument.
You don't know where the universe and all creation started. Neither can anybody that has a a theist view.
>> Okay, here's the rebuttal. It's highlighted on screen as was given like 5 to 10 minutes ago.
>> Answer it. Uh it's it's a nonsequittor.
I also I reject premise uh 2 3 4 5.
>> Okay. Answer just the basic question. Do you understand how all this all began?
>> I reject that this all had a beginning.
>> Why you reject the thing that's highlighted on the screen? I don't think that there's a beginning. I think that time did not begin to exist. I think there's an infinite regress of time as is indicated by the argument that if time began to exist then there would be a timeless phase and a temporal phase and the timeless phase would change into the temporal phase but everything that changes is in time so the timeless phase would be in time and that's no bueno so time did not begin to exist.
>> All right, you heard it here first guys.
Ian knew and always knew and that's all good. So guess what guys I'm gonna say good night. Enjoy your dime at the view.
>> You know who else?
>> There's a guy who makes this same argument like 2500 years ago. His name was Aristotle.
>> You should look into him.
You know, it's not like an Ian original argument. And in fact, it predates Christianity. But I mean, you know, I accept your surrender.
Uh thanks as always for the discussion.
Man, there's like so much straw. I'm going to be pulling straw out of my ass for the rest of the week the way that I've been straw manned here. This is like ridiculous.
Yeah. Well, I mean, yeah, instead of like rage quitting, you have like a wine quitter. You got to appreciate that.
Let's read some supers. Nectu, thanks so much for the 13-month subscription. Uh 13 months of chilling as a cool Corey is why I get up every day and eat my waties. That's great. I'm glad. I'm glad that you know this can be what you live for. You know, you you live for the stream and one day you'll die for the stream, Nectu. Believe me. Um no, I appreciate that. Neck too. Thank you so much.
Larry, thanks so much for the $50 super chat. $50 goes really, really far because I'm going back to school. I'm taking uh taken some undergrad philosophy courses to prep a um application to philosophy grad school.
Um it's been I've learned like truly so much and I've been able to refine my ideas and I've been given so many great resources, so many um you know being in class I I learned because my philosophy knowledge is basically entirely self-taught. So I just have a lot of like gaps in my knowledge because you know it's self-taught. I only read the areas that I was interested in. But being forced to engage with these other areas has been very enlightening to me.
You know, I've learned a lot.
So, I appreciate it, Larry. Thank you.
Matty Meister, thanks so much for the super chat. Uh, Philippines exist 11th book in the New Testament based.
Um, Matty Meister, thanks so much for the super chat, bro. Asking for a taste of evidence. Freaky [ __ ] Yeah.
What's that? What's that song that they used as the intro to?
[ __ ] It's like the superhero, but he's like the anti-hero.
[ __ ] This is so roundabout.
God damn it. He was John Cena. It's John Cena as as Who was he? [ __ ] Peacem. Peacemaker, maybe? I think Peacemaker. Yeah. Um Peacemaker. And then they had like if you haven't seen the Peacemaker intro like you should go watch it. It kicks ass. Both seasons that show the first season was a lot of fun. Second season a bit less fun but um you know and one of the one of the intro songs was Do you want to taste it by I think Wigw Wham. Um so yeah, this guy wanted to taste the evidence. Um Dr. Fudge, thanks so much for super chat. Yeah, Ian, you need to be challenged. It's not like you do that literally every day uh when you do these shows. And also obviously you need to be challenged by a self-confessed uneducated person. Well, at least he's self-confessed. You know, you can't indict him for ignorance on his level of knowledge. Um only uh for the fact that knowing that you have that level of knowledge should make you seriously reconsider the rest of the things that you say.
Dr. Fudge, thanks so much for the super chat. Um hey, FYI, I couldn't fit it, but uh I don't think an uneducated person can't challenge an educated person. And I just think it's funny that he doesn't see the asymmetry at the outset and hasn't demonstrated competence. Uh I'm not elitist. I didn't think that you were. But yeah, I mean that's that's true.
Um magic rectangle. Thanks so much for chat. Uh Joel reads Bible live stream yesterday. Every argument is God of the gaps. Carl Bismar today. I don't understand the question or the answer.
Uh therefore God. Yeah, he's just a confused guy. In fact, it's just a total coincidence that he stumbled into a God debate. You know, he doesn't even care about God. Glitterlock, thanks so much for super chat. God damn, Carl is incredibly stupid. Uh, breathtaking.
Holy [ __ ] how do you maintain your composure?
There's like a part of me that's worried. Um, I don't know. Like, there's like self-doubt when he keeps on strawing me and he's like, "You just said this thing. You just said this thing." Like, I have to take a second and be like, "Did I just say that thing?
I don't think I say that thing. I don't believe that thing." Um, so, but after you get over like that initial bump of like, you know, this guy's a scumbag.
And when he tells you that you just said a thing, you like he's just lying, right? Like as soon as you get over that bump, it's sky's the limit, frankly.
Ray, thanks so much for the super chat.
I've been lasering in on the Creation X materia in Genesis lately myself. It um it seems like even Christians believe that some kind of material always existed. They they need to they need to say that some type of material always existed. Well, I mean, they they don't want to, but it it does very clearly seem to be that in Genesis, right? He's hovering over the waters. Did he create the waters?
They kind of it kind of reads like a demi- urge, right? It kind of reads like Zeus.
HTC, thanks so much for super chat. Is this the same crying baby from the crybaby from the other day? Luckily, luckily he's an infinite source of content, though. I'm sorry, chat. I'm sorry, chat. Unfortunately, he's just fantastic content. It's like It's like if uh Jerry from uh Rick and Morty was like way more confident and like way dumber and he's just here to whine. He's just here to whine at you. Um and it's like I don't know. It's like the tutorial mission neck too at night. Thanks so much chat.
I think he thinks you work at an atheist call center like you're some sort of atheist telemarketer. I am. You know, try try atheism.
Give it a try. Give it a go.
My KB commodor.
I have like brutally [ __ ] this up, dude. Oh no. Um, in Phil 120, I typed up a translation of the lyrics to the monk theme song into formal logic and showed it to my TA. He literally killed Two weeks later, uh, Carl Bee's attempted syllogism was far worse.
That's like reasonable, right? Like, why would you even do that? It just doesn't follow. It's just a nonsequitator. Why would you even do that? It doesn't even have any meaning. It's It's What do you You don't understand what the tool is.
Pat in the chat. Thanks so much. Super chat. What a Nothing burger of a syllogism. So, according to P5, Carl won't believe you had a birthday. I mean, unless he was there, creep.
Yeah, that's kind of weird that you want to see my mom give birth to me. That's kind of weird. Carl Nicko, thanks so much. I want to start reading an epis on epistemology. Where should I start? Doing it mostly to argue against tag better. Um, Michael Huer has a great book uh titled Understanding Knowledge. Um, Michael Huer, his book uh knowledge, reality, and value. That one's really good, too, if you have literally zero experience with this. But um I also think that I think that you can likely like put tag in a body bag uh just by reading like Michael Humer's um skeptic like the veil of skepticism book. He he has like some book that was like it's not a beginner book, but it's like where just his book where he defends phenomenal conservatism. Um I think that you'll I think that's probably sufficient to like totally body like all the tag people. Um like like really like [ __ ] obliterate them, you know? I just intuit it that it's not my dude. And hey, if you wanna uh that was our previous reading group, but if you want to join the next reading group, we're reading on virtue ethics by Rosland Hurst House. Um it's a book that lays out the udeimmonic uh virtue ethics view. Um you have to read chapter 4, which is the one about content Aristotle, the first in the virtuous motivation section. It's going to be great. We just finished the virtuous action section.
Okay, with that we'll go to the very next guest.
>> Hey, how's it going?
>> Yo, Ian, bro, where have you been?
>> Been about and out, bro. What's up, >> bro? I missed your lives. I'm 19.
>> Yeah, what religion?
>> Uh, I'm I'm not I'm not religious. I just came up to here here to say that I love you so much, bro. You You really got me into like philosophy and stuff. I I'm I'm about to join the book club probably tonight and get into, you know, virtue ethics.
>> Hey, that's awesome. Yeah, we can't wait to have you. Thanks so much for coming on up. Appreciate you. We're only doing debates, so >> I will be moving on.
Hey, how's it going, Mike?
Mike, if you're off the app, I can't hear you, Mike.
You gotta be on the >> Hey, what's up? How's it going? How old are you?
>> Sorry. How are you?
>> Uh, yeah. Um, what religion?
>> Christian.
>> What makes you think that God exists?
>> Um, I'd like to go over your time argument that you had with the previous guy.
>> Yep, let's do it. Um, there's a bit of an echo as well. I don't know if you have uh if you don't have headphones in, maybe consider putting some in or >> I have AirPods in.
>> Okay. Um that's fine. Sure. So the argument is this. If time began to exist and a timeless phase changes into a temporal phase, anything that changes is in time. Uh but the timeless phase is not in time. Therefore, time did not begin to exist.
Um, when it comes to anything that changes is in time, I feel like that's a bad assumption. Why would you assume that anything changes have to be in time?
>> Yeah, because everything that changes has at least two phases of its life where one is before uh and one is after, you know. Um, and if you have these like separate distinct moments uh where one is before and one is after, well, at that point you just have time. that just is a time series to have um moments that are ordered sequentially.
>> Okay, fair enough. I can agree with that. I have a question about that though. When it comes to time being infinite, you believe that time is infinite or has always been, right?
>> Yeah.
>> How do you actually in practice live out an infinite number of time until we get to today?
>> So, >> if there's an infinite amount of time before today, how does that actually happen?
>> Yeah, I think that the beat theory solves this quite easily. So there's kind of two views in philosophy of time.
There's the A theory which holds that only the present exists. Um and then there's the B theory which holds that all moments exist. That all moments are equally real and that passage is like mind dependent. That um we experience passage or we seem to experience passage based on the configuration of our brains at specific times. Uh but in fact like all these moments are actual.
>> You think passage is mind dependent? You think there's no time before minds? No, no, no, no. I think that there were moments before minds. I think that there's no passage. I think that all moments eternally exist. But the phenomena of passage I think requires minds.
>> Okay. So if time didn't pass before minds existed.
>> The understand there is nothing to to have the appearance of passage when minds don't exist. The view is that like the entire timeline exists.
>> So if a tree falls in the woods and you're not there then does it make a sound like it does argument.
>> Okay. So if time is there passing time and nobody's there to win the assist does it does it pass?
>> No. I think passage is something that is grounded in minds.
>> I don't think that there's I don't think that there's like genuine coming into existence of new moments or genuine going out of existence. I think that this is something that our mind presents to us uh because it's evolutionarily useful.
>> You don't think there's any time outside of the mind. So if all humans and all >> that's not I didn't say that. Isn't that the logical entailment of your argument?
>> No. How's it not?
>> I think all moments in time exist. I think that they're all actual.
>> How does a moment in time exist and how does it get to the next moment without a passage of time?
>> How?
>> Wait, sorry, what's the question?
>> If a moment, you said all moments exist equally.
>> Yeah. All moments are real.
>> How do you get to the next moment if there's no minds?
>> That moment is already actual.
>> That moment is actual just at that time.
>> Yeah. Yeah. How do you get to the next moment if there's no >> All the moments are actual.
>> Do you think all moments happen at the exact same time? That >> they're different times.
>> Something that's not time.
>> How do you do >> you want to is is like the debate strategy here to like intentionally try to engage with the argument like it doesn't feel like it. Sure. So I mean I can >> write it down in syllogism for me so that we can actually >> it's not a syllogism type argument. It's like a >> syllogism.
>> It's a position. And the position has a description to it, but there isn't like like I can give you a syllogism for eternalism if you want. You know, I can motivate eternalism, but it seems like what you're not understanding. Okay, that's fine. I can give you the syllogism.
>> Um because you're being like like incredibly obtuse, it's going to be like incomprehensible to you because you know you're going to get back what you've been giving. Um so, uh >> I don't know how you think I've been obtuse. I've been trying to >> if bio curvature exists >> and is non zero >> then uh fourdimensionalism at least four dimensionalism is true.
Uh if tides exist and change at different times then vile curvature exists.
Um and if uh uh tides exist and change at different times.
Therefore, at least four dimensions exist.
Yep. So, here you go.
>> Okay. So, what's how does that prove that there's no passage of time outside of a mind?
>> Yeah. Because it demonstrates that the fourth dimension is actual.
>> Okay. So, the fourth dimension doesn't have Can you explain to me how that proves there's no >> the fourth dimension is time. So in the same way that we have these spatial dimensions, there's also this temporal dimension that's just like the spatial dimensions.
>> I I'm really trying to understand. I'm not trying to be obtuse. I'm sorry if it's coming off that way.
>> Okay.
>> How where does this in these in this syllogism where does the mind fit into the syllogism to where time does not pass?
>> Why does it need to be in the syllogism?
The syllogism just establishes that all moments are actual.
>> Sorry, I cut out for a second. I asked you for a syllogism for why you believe that time doesn't pass without a mind and you gave me this. Which of what part of the syllogism points to that?
>> Yeah, because if four dimensions exist then that means that there is not passage of time that all moments of time are actual.
You actually believe this?
>> Yeah.
>> I don't I'm not trying to be like obtuse.
>> Yeah, I do actually believe it. And in fact, it's like a really good argument.
It seems >> Okay.
>> It's such a good argument that it seems like you don't even have like a critique of it.
>> I I want to have a critique of it. I'm trying to understand it because it seems illogical and I'm sure a lot of people in the chat agree. Could you walk me through it so that I fully understand?
>> Yeah. So, there's this thing called vile curvature. Um now in three dimensions and less it's zero. The value of it is zero. But vile curvature is the thing that causes the tides. You know it's the the propagation through spaceime of gravity waves. Um it's one of them but it's the one that's responsible for tides. So if tides exist and they change at different times then you know vile curvature exists. Otherwise there would be no medium to for the gravity to travel through. So and because vio curvature in order for it to exist and be non zero you need at least four dimensions that means that four dimensions must exist. Now we have our three spatial dimensions right we have you know the x y and the z but then the fourth dimension is time.
So in the same way >> you think that time and matter are linked from Einstein's theory about E= MC² >> they are and if you accept that then you actually accept my view of time if you believe in space time >> how does that happen?
>> Yeah because in so far there's going to be some reference frame that matches every point in time to every point in space.
>> So matter and time are linked. How does that prove that without a mind that it doesn't happen? I don't understand. Do you >> Because if all moments are actual, then there are no potential moments that come into existence. All moments exist.
>> Put it with more words. You're smuggling in definitions. I'm not trying to call you.
>> It's like >> bad faith. But I'm just trying to understand. Use more words to say it.
>> It's hard to describe this in any other term. Like if you don't understand what it means for something to exist, if you don't understand what it means for a time to exist, the view is that in the same way that this time exists, all times exist, but they're not right now.
In the same way, think about it like space. So 10 miles away from here exists. It's actual, but it's not right here. So 10 minutes from now exists, but it's not right now. That's the view.
>> So it exists.
you've I I'm going to be clear. I'm not trying to be obtuse. I really don't know how this has anything to do with a mind making time not pass forward when it >> it's because passage doesn't actually happen at the some total state of affairs level.
>> If it doesn't actually happen then how do we even measure time is the measurement >> only we're dependent on our mind. Our mind produces >> also. Yeah, obviously measurements like the measurement of the thing is mind dependent, but the thing can still exist mind independent.
>> Can you give me an example of what the world would look like with like without a mind to observe it? Is it just not move? Does it not does it not does nothing pass? Is nothing measurable outside of the mind?
>> Yeah. So, think about it like this. Um I don't know if you've ever done like video editing, but you have like the timeline down. um you know that's like a timeline that represents like two-dimensional thing. Now imagine that there was some way to represent like the third dimension there as well and you just have like these like objects that are moving through all four dimensions.
They're like four-dimensional objects where they change along the fourth dimension.
>> Okay. If they change along the fourth dimension, wouldn't that imply that they there's a passage of time if they're changing?
>> No. When I say when I say they change, what I'm saying is that they're different at different moments.
>> At this moment, they're this way. At that moment, they're that way. Yeah. And that's compatible with the view.
>> Okay. The definition of change is that there's it's one way and then it becomes a different way.
>> And you said that that can only happen inside time.
>> Yeah.
>> So time is passing without >> Wait, sorry, that doesn't follow.
There's time is a dimension.
>> It does.
>> Oh, it doesn't. And let me explain why.
So these things are one way at one time, a different way at a different time. So obviously time is still there and that the change is going to be dependent on this time, but you don't need real passage in order to have this difference. Because what it is in the same way is that you know there's like there's like a like a change between like my finger and my arm, but it's like a spatial change. So it's like that but with time.
>> You can't have a spatial change outside of time. Do you believe that?
>> You can't have space without time.
>> True. So what do you think is Do you think time is outside of of space?
>> Is time.
>> I think that they're interconnected.
>> So can I know but you're talking about a fourth dimension where there is no space. Correct.
>> No, there Well, wait. I don't know what you mean. It's like asking like oh this like x this like x dimension where there is no y dimension. I mean for every point in the the x dimension that's going to be a corresponding point on the y dimension.
>> Okay. I want I don't want to straw man you. Okay. You stop me exactly where you think I'm wrong of your own opinion.
Okay.
>> Okay.
>> The fourth dimension is time >> in your own words. Correct.
>> Yep.
Can the fourth Did the fourth dimension exist independent of the other dimensions?
>> No, they're all dependent. They're interdependent.
>> So matter can't exist without time.
>> Wait, sorry. What dimension do you think matter is?
>> For your sake of your argument one, two, three. I don't even really agree.
>> That came out of nowhere, right?
>> The fourth dimension.
Do you agree that there's matter in the fourth dimension or is it just linked to >> I think that matter exists within spacetime.
>> Okay.
>> I think this view is ridiculous.
>> Okay. I think that this is like I think that this is about as good of a critique as you've given this entire time is you just throw your hands up and say this view is ridiculous.
>> Is there like I mean unfortunately you know it's like just empirically verified, right? Take it up with Einstein. not empirically verified. Do you believe in >> Wait, sorry. Wait. If you agree with general relativity, then it is this is like the this is like the object that in time is the four dimensional spaceime, right? Like it's literally you against Einstein here in terms of like our view of physics.
>> I disagree.
>> Disagree. Let's move on to the next point.
>> Wait, wait, let's stick on this point.
Let's let's talk to a physicist about this exact point. You know, hey quantina, isn't four-dimensionalism, at least four dimensionalism literally presupposed, isn't that like the center like beating heart of general relativity?
>> Not just general, but also special relativity, which is even more simple.
>> True.
>> And I tested that myself.
>> I didn't say I didn't believe in four dimensions. I just said that your view that there time does not pass without without a mind is what I don't believe.
>> The perception of time passing is what requires minds. In reality, all moments of time exist equally in the same way that all mo all all positions in space exist equally.
>> You don't believe time is on a timeline.
Like we wouldn't be able to >> that that's not that's not mutually exclusive.
>> The thing that's mind dependent is the perception of passage. There are different moments of time. But >> you said there were no passage.
>> The perception >> the analogy is that time is a frozen river. This is a com. You can ask the chat. I'm not trying to lie. I swear you said the passage of time does not happen without a mind. And I >> And that's true. That That's literally true. Yes, that that is what I'm telling you. Passage is perceptual.
>> Again, the common analogy that people use is that time is like a frozen river in that like it has, you know, an extension of itself. It goes in a line and when you're inside of it, it kind of looks like it's going in a direction, but if you were to look at it from the outside, you know, whatever that means in this analogy, it's actually all just sort of froze.
>> So, you think the future is already set in stone and you can't change the future?
>> I mean, in a sense, yeah, I mean, the exact nature of that depends on quantum mechanics, but we won't go into that.
>> I think that you're certainly causally responsible for the things that happen next, right? like this slice is responsible for the next one because >> this >> there's like a causal dependence between this slice and the next one or like the progression of them.
>> Okay, I don't want to be derailed by the causal responsibility. I think that's a separate argument. I think it's a valid it's a good thing to talk about but I don't think is what we're talking about.
Uh >> but to give a specific example of this um if you want to look up the relativity of simultaneity, the basic premise is that two events that look simultaneous or you know happen at the exact same moment for one observer might for a different observer look like one event happens in their past and then another in their future. And since neither perspective is preferred over the other in physics and you know they're both equally valid, then it must follow that all moments in time, both the past, present, and future are all equally real because you could arbitrarily pick a reference frame in which one is in the past, one is in the future, or one is in the present.
>> So you think they're all equally equally real simultaneously?
>> That's what that's not simultaneously to clarify. You guys are disagreeing. I guess >> they're different moments. They're at different times. They're all actual, but they're actual at different times in the same way that you know all space is actual, but it's not right here.
>> The common example is say you have two lightning rods and from one observer that's perhaps uh stationary with relative to these lightning rods, maybe they get hit at what looks like the exact same time. But if you're on a train moving past the lightning rods, it might look like one lightning rod was hit in the past and then one will get hit in the future. And both of those viewpoints are equally as valid as the other.
>> What does that to do with the past and the present happening at the same time?
>> Wait, that's not that's not the claim, right? The claim is not that they're happening at the same time. It's that they're all actual. It's that the entire timeline exists. that there there's like this fourdimensional spaceime. That's the claim.
>> Okay. Sorry, I didn't mean I misspoke.
>> Yeah, this is just one way to show >> you're showing that >> because you can always pick >> you can always pick a reference frame in which two events that happen from one perspective at different times can look like they're happening at the same time for a different observer.
And since we all agree that, you know, the present is definitely real, you know, regardless of your viewpoint in time, if you can arbitrarily pick a reference frame that makes two events happen at the same time, then uh that means that the past and the future must be as real as the present.
>> Okay, let me critique this for like 30 seconds. So what you're getting at, tell me if I'm wrong, is that if the person's riding the train, we have in physics found that time and matter are linked enough to where if you go like >> this has nothing to do with matter.
>> Where's the matter coming from?
>> Has nothing to do with matter.
>> Nobody said matter.
>> Why would somebody on train see at a different time somebody standing next to lightning? Oh, they see it due to time at different times.
>> The fact that the speed of light must be the same in all inertial reference frames.
No, it has to do with velocity.
>> That's matter.
>> It has to do with velocity, not matter.
>> Okay. How do you have velocity without matter?
>> Like light.
>> Is matter light? I mean, light matter >> has light travels at a velocity and it's not made out of matter.
>> Light is not made out of matter.
>> Correct.
>> Tragic.
>> Light rays are not matter is what you're trying to tell me. measurable inside of our universe if it's not matter.
>> Oh wow. You know if time isn't if time if time isn't matter then how do we measure it? Oh brilliant question.
>> But but yeah >> are you a pure material particles of light belong to a class of particles called bzons which are not matter.
>> If there do you believe in things that are supernatural then like isn't the definition of atheist logical entailment of atheist? Oh, it's materialism.
>> Wait, this guy's this guy's like turbo confused. Uh, no, it's the reverse.
Materialism would entail atheism.
Atheism doesn't entail materialism.
>> How does atheism not entail materialism?
>> You could be like a Buddh You could literally be a supernaturalist and an atheist. You could be like a like a Buddhist, for example, or you could be like a naturalist who holds that there's um like immaterial things. Like you could be like a cartisian dualist. You could hold that there's like a mental substance that like your mental experience is like this secondary dual substance.
You could be a platonist. You could hold that numbers exist.
You know, none of those things are gods.
So, >> okay, I'll agree with that for the sake of argument at least.
>> Sure.
>> Um, >> yeah. Did you >> believe in >> Yeah, go for it.
>> Do you not believe in entropy?
>> I do. I do believe in entropy >> that the usable amount of time is a consequence of the laws of thermodynamics.
>> Yes. So if we have if time is infinite and we have an infinite amount of time before >> today unfortunately matter.
>> Unfortunately one of the prerequisites for applying the laws of thermodynamics is that energy is conserved within a system. But we know observationally that on cosmological scales energy is not conserved. Therefore you cannot use the second law of thermodynamics as is.
>> There also there are also models under which um entropy >> although it's like decreasing on average or it's increasing on average it would uh decrease under specific models like it would go through cycles.
>> Yeah, exactly. That's but that's precisely because energy is not conserved in our universe that allows that possibility.
What do you mean energy is not conserved within our universe? Where does it go?
>> It doesn't go anywhere. It's not conserved. That's the point. If it was conserved, then it would have to go somewhere, but it's not conserved. So, it can change over time.
>> Explain to me how it goes from conserved to not conserved inside of our system.
>> Yeah. from something called no there's theorem where a conserved quantity of nature relates to a symmetry of that system and energy conservation specifically comes from something called time translation symmetry which our universe does not obey on cosmological scales >> can you use any more words for layman please >> uh >> just don't list the theories tell me how they actually work >> properties of system relate to conserved values like energy but universe doesn't have that property that makes energy conserved.
>> Simple enough.
>> Why why do we assume that the universe does not have the quality that can conserve this type of energy?
>> Because we see that it's expanding.
>> Therefore, it does not obey time translation symmetry. Time translation symmetry means that the laws of physics are identical over time. But we see that the laws of physics are actually changing over time. You know the expansion rate it's changing.
>> Changing in what way? Not a constant is what you're saying.
>> Correct. It's not constant. That's what changing means.
>> Why wouldn't you just assume that the universe is bigger than you thought?
Then the universe is actually growing.
>> It has nothing to do with the size. It's how it's changing over time. We see that the expansion rate is getting faster over time.
which means that it does not obey the symmetry that is required for energy conservation.
>> How does matter accelerate at a non-constant rate over time?
>> Is it random?
>> What?
>> Well, it's not the matter that's accelerating. It's the question expansion of spaceime itself.
>> It's the scale factor of the universe.
Yeah, >> I think you guys are just I'm gonna be honest. I feel like you're just lost in the thinking too hard about it to where you just create theories that don't actually make any sense and you assume that they're real.
>> No, I'm just ask you like a I mean, yeah, like this guy's like a PhD candidate in physics. I mean, I don't know. Can you tell us >> Can you Can you tell us what like Newton's three laws are? I mean, you think that physics is [ __ ] Like what are Newton's three laws?
>> I don't think physics is [ __ ] I just kind of >> well this is >> yeah unfortunately >> so this is like unfortunately found >> trying to deny basic physics >> yeah this is like foundation >> don't know their theorem is basically the foundation of all of modern physics >> okay so under this physics argument that you're giving that this is basic physics why does any physicist believe that there's a god or there's zero >> what the [ __ ] >> you're making an argument >> there's arguing about time >> physicist >> no I'm getting to be atheist.
>> You're giving an argument from appeal to authority and I'm just taking that.
>> Wait, sorry. You were asking about physics, right? How how do you think we should go about more?
>> Do you think that do you think we should go about doing the physics based on vibes? Do you think we should like just vibe our way through the conclusion? You know, we should, you know, whatever is intuitive, well, that's what I think physics are. Whatever is unintuitive, well, that must be fake.
>> No, I don't think we should just >> Also, to be clear, I'm not an authority.
I don't have power over you. I can't arrest you. I'm an expert. I'm making an argument from expertise. But if you want me to actually like explain the mathematics, I can.
>> Okay. Your argument from expertise is logical fallacy because there's physicists that are PhDs that believe in God. Yes or no?
>> Well, wait. Sorry. Are there any physicists who are PhDs that disagree with what Quant just said about Nother's theorem?
>> Are there You said it was I don't know.
I'm not an expert in physics, but you said this is a basic physics.
>> The answer is no. that just prove the answer is not any sorry wait sorry this what this does is demonstrate my theory of time to be true uh this is a defense against your internal critique of my position uh nobody has claimed that this is a disproof of God you just had to straw man us in that way after the debate didn't go the way that you wanted it to >> okay is this not a foundational argument for why you don't believe in God >> uh this is the argument for why I don't believe in God down here that if time began to exist then a timeless phase changes into a temporal phase that anything that changes is in time and that the timeless phase is not in time. Therefore, time does not begin to exist.
>> And this whole argument is about how time doesn't begin to exist, which is a physics based argument.
>> And if a any physicist knows this because it's basic physics, why would any physics claim the claim is that this is a philosophy claim? This is a philosophical argument.
>> Okay.
Doesn't matter if it's a physics claim or a philosophical claim from side.
>> It can be both.
>> So, uh, what's the critique?
>> He made an appeal of expertise.
>> Wait, sorry. What's the critique of the argument? Because you need to reject a premise otherwise the conclusion just follows.
>> I don't know enough about physics to go and reject anything.
>> It's not even a physics argument. Okay.
that time not having a beginning is a physics argument, right?
>> That's the conclusion.
>> No.
>> Yes.
>> You're you proved that time doesn't have a beginning through physics, did you not?
>> No, you can also do it through philosophy.
>> That's a philosoph.
But that was your main argument for why it doesn't exist.
>> No, the argument this is it's a philosophical argument.
>> Like maybe you're illiterate, maybe you just can't read it. Uh but uh what's the physics that's being invoked in premise one 12?
>> I'm not looking at the screen. We just had like >> okay >> 30 minute conversation about physics.
>> I'll summarize it back to you. Yeah. And to be clear, if you remember, the reason why we talked about physics is because you were being incredulous about uh the B theory of time, which by the way, even if the A theory of time was true, the conclusion of this argument could still be true.
>> How was that?
>> The argument would still follow. the premises would still be true.
>> Yeah. Tell me the a theory of time and how it would still be true.
>> Because there's no contradiction.
>> Did you hear the words I said?
>> Yeah. Tell me how under the a theory of time it would still be true.
>> I don't remember what your a theory of time was. I'm asking >> the idea that presentism or sorry, it's presentism. The idea that the present exists and that the past and future do not exist.
How would that not imply that time passes without a mind?
>> Under the A theory, time does pass.
Under the B theory, it doesn't.
>> Okay. So, if the time passes in the A theory, >> yes, >> there has to have been an infinite amount of time before it. If you believe infinite time, >> if you believe time didn't begin >> and it keeps passing, how do you live out an infinite number of days >> from when that presupposes a starting point? The question has a loaded presupposition.
>> You presuppose that there's ever not an infinite series that there's >> infinitely an infinite series and that you're adding on to it day by day.
You're you're treating infinity like it's a number, but it's not. It's a cardality.
>> You tell me if I'm wrong. Okay. Infinity implies there's an infinite amount of time before today.
>> Uh no, it's not a number.
There's If you took like the cardality of the set of all moments, well, that would be infinite.
>> I mean, what is there an infinite amount of? It's not a number. I don't understand.
>> So, it's not an amount.
>> It's like a nonsensical. Infinity isn't a number. It's not an amount. But >> cardinalities that are >> infinity of >> give you a specific example of why it's not a number. Usually when you add one to a number, it turns into a different number. But if you were to add one to infinity, it's still infinity. It's the same number, which you know means that it doesn't obey the laws that numbers normally obey. So it's a different kind of mathematical object. and we call it a cardality.
>> So under your current level of physics knowledge, how do you live out an infinite number of days? I mean, even how what's even conceptualize something that's not a number?
>> Supposing that it's a number, but it's not.
>> What is it if it's not a number?
>> A cardality? I've said this.
>> Can you measure a cardality?
>> What do you mean by measure? Like go out like a like a Yeah. Like what do you mean >> then? How did time pass if you can't measure?
>> Time passes measurement theory.
>> The measurement is our Yeah. Okay. I don't even know what that means. But >> okay. Well, it's all like literally every term has been explained to you in that like multiple times. So that's that's >> a right now.
>> We're talking about the entire A theory right now. Yeah. You just said a sentence which explained in the A theory which is clearly not because I'm asking questions about it.
>> Passage exists on the A theory.
>> Yeah. And passage implies a number of time passes.
>> Nope.
>> What is passing? What is passing if not a number?
>> Nope. Because it could just be a cardality. You could just add one more moment instead of all moments.
>> Yeah. So there's more than one moment, right?
>> More than one moment. Yeah, there's more than one moment. I agree with that.
>> There might be even two moments or three moments or four.
>> Yeah. Starts with a finite base. Whereas my view is going to hold that there's there is not a moment in time where there's a finite base.
>> It could be for example for every number on the number line from negative you know going to negative infinity to positive infinity there exists a unique moment of time. This is a well- definfined object.
>> Okay. at a unique moment of time on a timeline in the unit in the a theory of time.
>> Is the timeline is the number line?
>> Even if it's infinite, >> the number still goes down.
>> You can still count the movement of the timeline if you're going to the left.
>> Yeah, you can you can count it like comparatively >> like you can say that it's more than previous are only counting comparatively. You just in your previous sentence you said you can't count it. There is no number, but you can compare them.
>> That's what numbers are. Compare.
>> Sorry, you're a bit confused about this.
We're talking about cardalities, unfortunately. Oh, yeah. I'm not. He says >> I think I think you're I think you're a bit confused. Talk about numbers in comparison to cardality.
>> Wait, sorry. I literally have a math degree. I don't think you want to I don't think this is going to go well for you, but I I do encourage you, right, because you made appeals to authority. I do encourage you to continue.
>> I didn't appeal anything.
>> Don't tell them that there's different types of infinity.
>> That'll break them.
>> Yeah. Okay, please explain to me how a passage of time doesn't imply that there is an amount changing.
>> The cardality is comparatively higher than what it was previously, but ultimately the cardality is still infinite.
>> You can measure that with a number.
>> So, and that's actually a good lesson about infinities is that you can compare infinities and they can have different sizes. Whoa, just calm down. No need to get upset.
>> You've been more rude than me. You can have the chat.
They're >> probably on your side. You've >> been more rude.
I don't know. The fact that his profile picture I'm pretty sure is from SteinsGate is very ironic.
>> O brutal.
>> Isn't SteinsGate a good anime? Like what? You don't like it?
>> It it's it's about time travel, which is deeply ironic for this conversation.
>> Yeah, it is ironic, but doesn't mean that you're right. I don't want to tell you.
>> Sure. Um, well, I mean, do you have like any any ongoing critique? I mean, we could just get this done pretty quickly, I think. How many things does God know?
>> Can we can we just stay on?
>> Yeah, I just want to know how many things does God know? You don't think that there can be infinence? How many things does God know?
>> I believe there can be infinite. I'm just your idea.
>> Oh, I see. Sure. So, then what's the problem with my view?
You said that I don't believe there's infinite time. I think there can be infinite things.
>> Okay. Why can't there be infinite? So, can there can you take these infinite things and arrange them in some sort of order?
>> I just want to know how the passage of time doesn't imply an amount.
between let's say we took half the amounts >> and then we added an additional we took one thing from one category and then put it over the other category but you know both of them are still infinite doesn't that imply that there's some problem with the things that God knows doesn't that mean that omniscience is impossible >> isn't that argument that for that there is no infinities >> yeah this would uh this would disprove God's existence is the point >> but you do believe in infinite So >> I do I do but I how about I how about I pull the rip cord and then I say well God doesn't exist and now I hold to the Hardle Hawking state and you know we we meet in the middle and then agree that there's no God.
>> Join me.
>> I didn't disagree there was infinite. So I just your reasoning for why there is no starts at time is illogical. It's not I'm not arguing that there's no infinite. It's possible that time can be infinite or didn't have a starting point. You just haven't given me an argument that has convinced me. Oh, well, can you tell me which premise you disagree with? I got premise one, if time began to exist, then a timeless phase changes into a temporal phase.
Premise two, anything that changes is in time. Premise three, the timeless phase is not in time. Therefore, time did not begin to exist.
>> I think what fundamentally disproves that time is infinite is that >> which premise do you disagree with?
>> You need to accept the conclusion.
I don't I disagree with that anything that changes within time.
>> Do you agree that anything that changes there's some moment where it's before and some moment where it's after?
>> Uh do you think that there's things outside of time?
>> Wait, do you want to answer my question?
Would you agree or disagree with that?
That there's every Oh, you don't think that? Oh, yeah, sure. Can you give me the example of the change? Uh a thing that changes that doesn't have two moments where one's before and one's after. That's a contradiction, actually.
You have a thing that's incompatible ways in the same state. Well, at that point, you just >> Okay. Do you believe can you prove to me that there's nothing outside of time?
>> I did I ever make that claim?
>> You just did right there in the presupposition of what you just started.
>> Only if it changes, there's nothing that changes that's outside of time. So, for example, I believe that numbers exist and that numbers are outside of time, but numbers don't change.
>> Is it possible there's another paradigm outside of time where things can change?
>> Another paradigm. I don't think that there's a mind outside of time, which would be the house for a paradigm. So, no, >> I don't assume that change only happens because of a mind.
>> Okay, that's fine. But which premise does that reject?
>> I I told you the rejection of the premise is that I think that change can happen outside of time. You should >> Can you give me the example of the change outside of time?
the change specifically that doesn't have the before and the after.
>> Is it theoretically impossible is what I'm asking you.
>> Is it Oh, yes. Yeah, it is. Yeah.
>> There's no paradigm that's possible to change.
>> Yeah. In in so far as like a change would imply that it's in one state at one moment and a different state at the next moment. Yeah. You know, this is time. You have a time series there.
When you have moments ordered from before to after that just is time.
>> If you define that change that way where it implies time. I agree with you.
>> Okay.
>> I agree with you on this one.
>> You agree that time did not begin to exist then.
I >> think our current time began to exist.
Doesn't mean that there could be another paradigm of time before this one. Our system could have began in time and then there could have been another system outside of it or >> there's no before it. If time did not begin to exist, there is no before >> if there's two sets of time. I'm saying >> is it not theoretically possible? This is just like [ __ ] I don't even know if it's >> I'm just saying it's not theoretically impossible.
>> There can't be two sets of time.
>> It directly contradicts with itself.
It's theoretically impossible for another dimension to happen that has its own set of time.
Like I'm I'm not I'm not saying that >> they would be like connected onto the same manifold. I think >> yeah, you think you're not you're not 100% sure.
>> You could if there's any interaction between them at all, then yeah, you could define um >> I'm not saying >> you could define a metric between them.
>> Why could you not jump between them theoretically? I mean, this is just like in the weeds. I don't know >> between them >> like >> because you would need to leave at one point and then arrive at the next one, which means that there's going to be parody between the two times, which means that they're connected. They're actually one time series.
>> Okay, fair enough. But >> I mean, maybe funky like a two-dimensional time space, but that that gets really weird.
>> Yeah, I don't I don't even really want to talk about this. I'm just saying I just got not got not triggered but like I'm just disagreeing with you because I you sound so sure that there can't be another time frame paradigm outside of this one and I just don't feel like you have enough evidence for that.
>> I think that word means what you think it means.
>> Okay. Well, I mean you failed to reject a premise. Uh do you have anything else?
>> Uh no, you can go move on to the next person.
>> All right. Hey, thanks for coming out.
Appreciate you. Make sure you're double tapping on that screen share with your friends to know the good stuff.
>> In that case, I'll hop down as well.
Hey, thanks for coming on. Appreciate you.
>> Yep.
>> Wait, wait, before you go. Wait, don't leave. He's gone. No, I was going to grill him about about how you can have >> How do you get How do you get something from nothing in the the Guth Falinkan model?
>> You think something came from nothing in the Guth Falinkan model?
>> Is this the quantum tunneling one? Yeah.
Or like the >> universal It's at It's at zero. It's at like the zero state and then it quantum tunnels to like the one state.
Yeah, I am uh not convinced by that model.
>> I see.
>> Okay.
>> I'm not sure if it's technically a mathematically valid conclusion.
>> Okay.
>> Because the the whole point is that it says that the um the probability distribution of the scale factor of the universe peaks at zero when like time is equal to zero. But the issue is that probabil probability distributions are only like well defined over an area not a single slice.
>> I see. Yeah.
>> So so you can say that it has a nonzero probability of having a scale factor from like 0 to one for example. You can define a range of scale factors. But to say that the most likely, you know, scale factor of the universe is just from zero to zero, that's an infinitely thin slice of the probability distribution function, and I'm not convinced by that.
>> DM. So, do you think Isaac Newton beats the rest?
Yeah.
>> Okay. Sure. Yeah, I see. I see. Okay.
Well, hey, thanks. Appreciate it. Yep.
There was um there was a philosophy paper I was reading uh titled um the cosmic bomb hypothesis that's supposed to be like a parody of the colam that um you can like parody the colam by holding that there's like some sort of state that's like timeless and then it just goes off and then gives rise and the Guthalinkan model was one of the ones that get cited.
>> Hey, how's it going?
Yeah. Good. Good. There's too many flaws in your ideological framework for it to be sustainable.
>> Wait, sorry, one sec. Uh, how old are you?
>> Uh, 31. I'm old enough to realize there are too many ways to hear that. Whoa. Please calm down.
>> Sorry. What was that? What was that?
>> If you could move the microphone away, I can like hear like the the spit in your mouth and it's like it's a wetter experience than I'd like it to be.
>> Yeah. You're trying to run away from my claim. And I need one more thing which is what religion are you?
>> Christian. Christian.
>> Okay. Sure. Yeah. What makes you think that God exists?
>> Yeah. So there's too many flaws in your ideological framework in order for it to be sustainable. And you're arrogant for thinking that you can >> Yeah. So let me tell you're arrogant for think and you're dumb. Our dumb ass.
>> I'm sure that everyone who watches this right now and honestly at this rate in the future is going to come away with the impression that between the two of us I'm the arrogant one.
>> Wow. No. No. What I'm saying is this.
We're both dumb asses and we're too dumb to think we can comprehend God. That's what I'm trying to tell you. So, we're both two P's in the bucket.
>> Well, I half agree with you.
>> I'm a dumbass. You're a dumbass, but you you're not.
>> I agree with you.
>> Wow. Okay, dude. You You're ideological framework.
>> Can I just know I This is all meta. Can I just get like what's the substance?
Like what am I wrong about?
>> Yeah. So, you have no explanation as to an opposing view that God is God is real. So, you there's no way you can um substantiate that he's not real. the fact of reality that you want me to explain.
>> Yeah. So, you think we're in a [ __ ] simulation like GTA. You're >> I don't think I said that. I don't think that's what I believe.
>> It's implied from your uh >> I disagree. I don't think that it follows from the proposition that God isn't real, that therefore the simulation is true.
>> No, that's not true. You've said more than that. I've heard you before, dude.
I've watched you.
>> You've never said that the simulation is true. You're delusional. You you you haven't verbatim said that word for word, but you've hinted at it and you've basically danced around it.
>> That's not my belief. I don't believe that simulation is false.
>> Okay. So, yeah, good one, buddy. Like I was saying, so there um there's no evidence to support that he's not real.
You know what I mean? Like >> there's no evidence that he does exist.
I can give you the evidence he doesn't.
Evidence that he just calm down there.
No need for you to get upset.
>> I'm sorry. Maybe the fact that I said that it doesn't seem like you're presenting evidence. Maybe that like upset you. Maybe that, you know, I I'm sorry. You know, I maybe I can try to upset you a bit less next time. But, you know, dude, you need to be you need to be humble. I will humble you in >> Give me one piece of evidence. Give me your most humbling piece of evidence.
>> So, my my strongest argument would be fine-tuning. Um the fact that so many so many random possibilities just happen to align perfectly in order for like >> Sorry, what was that? Yeah, which ones?
>> There's millions. We can talk about how the body functions or how the solar system operates or how the world works or how everything just happens to properly talk about it. I mean, my kidneys produce rocks and then you have to piss them out like shards of glass.
So, uh, do you think that's finely tuned to kidney stones?
>> Yeah, it is because it still allows for life to continue. Do you expect >> you expect perfection? That's your problem. Why would God produce an imperfect thing?
>> Dude, you're an arrogant [ __ ] dude.
You're not mad. He has no control.
>> You're not going to admit that fell apart like that. It just dissolved. It was like cotton candy held under water.
Now all he can do is his like forced laugh, you know.
>> Very guttural, right? Like inhale.
>> Ad homonym attack. Got it. Yep. That's it. That's a low low.
>> It's not even an ad homonym. It's actually just an insult, right? You know, an ad homonym is an insult in the place of an argument. That was just an insult. Your argument got dispatched.
>> Oh w Oh. Oh, okay. So, you're going to double down on the arrogance. Got it.
So, like I was saying, dude, there's >> there's you should come back.
>> No, there's there's so many factors that if they were slightly tweaked differently, then life would not be substant.
>> Okay. So, if our um if we were just a few inches closer to the sun or further from the sun, we would either >> Sorry, what was that?
>> Yeah, go ahead and prove that.
>> You want me to move the [ __ ] Earth?
Are you Are you okay? Well, I want you to give me a study that says that what you said is false actually. And if you want like a fun fact, we actually do get closer to and farther away from the sun over time. Give me a second. We're actually getting farther from the sun. I don't know if you're aware of that. Are you having like a [ __ ] asthma attack, dude? Like, I have an inhaler for you.
>> I Whoa. Just take your inhaler. It's okay. It's okay. It's going to be a better auditory experience for all of us. Just hit that [ __ ] and give it a big or something, you know? I think you're having like an asthma attack. I'm like, I'm deeply worried for your lung quality. Are you like a lifetime smoker telling us about fine tuning?
>> Just Just to be clear, you you want me to move the earth in order to substantiate my claim. In order to substantiate my claim in order to substantiate my claim, you just asked me you you asked me that. Nope. I didn't ask you for that.
>> I can replay the I can hit the replay. I didn't ask that. I said prove it. I said give me a study.
>> What's a study that would >> You didn't say You didn't say give me a study. I did claim that. I said and then you said you want me to move the earth and I said no give me a study >> that's interaction you know and I grant right like I've slammed you so hard that you have a concussion which is why you don't remember >> Alzheimer's this is embarrassing >> let's watch the replay then if I'm going with Alzheimer's then let's watch the replay >> you never said give me a study buddy >> yeah wait let's watch the replay let's see whether or not I say you know give me a study >> dude I feel bad like cooking you I feel bad honestly you need doctor >> you're going to feel you're going to feel even worse in just a >> I feel that he wa Let's just calm down there.
No need for you to get upset.
>> I'm sorry. Maybe the fact that I said that it doesn't seem like you're presenting evidence. Maybe that like upset you. Maybe that you know I I'm sorry. You know, maybe I I can try to upset you a bit less next time. But, you know, I will humble you in one piece of evidence. Give me your most humbling piece of evidence.
>> Okay. Get ready. In position.
>> So, my my strongest argument would be fine-tuning. Um the fact that so many so many random possibilities just happen to align perfectly in order for like >> Sorry, what was that?
>> Yeah, which ones?
>> There's millions. We can talk about how the body functions or how the solar system operates or how the world works or how everything just happens to properly >> talk about it. I mean, my kidneys produce rocks and then you have to piss them out like shards of glass. So, uh do you think that's finely tuned to kidney stones?
>> Yeah, it is because it still allows for life to continue. Do you expect good >> you expect perfection? That's your Perfect. Why would God produce an imperfect thing?
>> Dude, you're an arrogant [ __ ] dude.
You're not mad. He has no >> You're not going to admit that fell apart like that. It It just dissolved.
It was like cotton candy held under water. Now all he can do is his like forced laugh, you know?
>> 30 seconds away from it. Inhale.
>> Ad homonym attack. Got it. Yep. That's it. That's it. Low low.
>> It's not even an ad homonym. It's actually just an insult, right? You know, an ad homonym is an insult in the place of an argument. That was just an insult. Your argument got dispatched.
>> Oh, wow. Oh. Oh, okay. So, you're going to double down on the arrogance. Got it.
So, like I was saying, dude, there's there's >> You should come back.
>> No, there's there's so many factors that if they were slightly tweaked differently, then life would not be substant.
>> Okay. So, if our um if we were just a few inches closer to the sun or further from the sun, Sorry, what was that?
>> Yeah, go ahead and prove that.
>> You want me to move the [ __ ] earth?
Are you Are you okay?
>> No, I want you to give me a study that says that.
>> Yeah, there it is. Give me a study that says that. That's exactly what I said it was.
>> Yeah, I was talking while you said that.
>> Yeah. Wait. So then Oh. Oh, shoot. Do you concede that you were mistaken about that? Wait, wait. So, were you wrong?
You were wrong. Just go ahead and say it. Just go ahead and say I was wrong.
Just go ahead and say that.
>> Yeah. Let's Let's get one. Get one.
Weezy.
Can we get the Can we get like a concession from you now that you just got proven wrong?
>> This is I feel bad right now.
>> Yeah. Just go ahead. Yeah. Yeah. Take catch your breath. You know, we all we all get like quite embarrassed, you know, when we were wrong, but you just got demonstrated to be wrong. You just agreed with >> Dr. Blitz. Dr. Blitz, man down. Dr. Blitz, you need backup.
>> Dr. Blitz. Dr. Blitz, man down. He just [ __ ] shot this guy in the head now.
He's like He's like wheezing out, dude.
He's like [ __ ] suffocating. You know, the blood has has gone from his brain hole and is flooding down into his his lungs, which is why he's wheezing so much. Dr. Blitz, we need you. You're a medical doctor. Dr. Blitz, help us. What What should we do, Dr. Blitz? I just kicked the [ __ ] air out of this guy, and now all he can say is, >> you know how this is embarrassing. You You need help. Just like the Avengers couldn't take down Thanos. They literally had to gang up 50 verse one.
That's what's happening. You're getting your ass beat so bad of my uh cinematic universe, right? You're like the [ __ ] calendar, man.
You you you wanted me to substantiate my argument. No, you wanted me to substantiate my argument by moving the earth. You didn't say any I didn't hear as for that. I asked you to give me a study. What's a study that says that if we moved an inch closer that we wouldn't live?
>> Oh, that's been proven before you were even Oh, dude. That's been >> Oh, so it is proven. Wait, so it is proven?
>> Of course. Yeah.
>> Sure. And And who proved it?
>> Who proved it?
>> Yeah. Who proved it?
>> Oh, man. So, look at the other planners.
>> Yeah. Wait, who proved it? So I'm actually So here's what we're going to do. I'm going to type down the question to make sure that we go in a good linear fashion, you know, to make sure that we're a bunch of linear Larry's as opposed to like exponential Eors.
>> Yeah, absolutely. Good idea. Good idea.
>> Proved that if we moved an inch closer or an inch farther away from the sun that life wouldn't exist.
>> Yeah. So, this is going to be broken down into two two uh two two >> just the name. Just the name.
>> Yeah. So, if we were an inch closer, we would >> burn. If we were an inch further away, we would freeze is my point.
>> Yeah. But who you said it was proved?
Who proved that?
>> Dude, you you didn't hear my claim cuz you're just too You're jumping out of your seat. You're foaming at the mouth like a [ __ ] dog.
>> Oh, no. He needs to run from the claim because he knows it's a blunder. He knows that he's going to get [ __ ] decimated on this. Now, all he can do is listen to his microphone. And that's the typical experience getting kneaded in the [ __ ] diaphragm. You know you are breathless.
>> You're embarrassing yourself, dude. This is crazy.
>> I'll ask the question again that you didn't answer. You made the claim that it was proven that if the Earth was moved an inch further away or closer to that life would not be possible. The question was who proved it?
>> Exactly. That's my claim. Yes, that's my claim.
>> Yep. Who proved it? Go ahead.
>> Now, I'm I'm going to get to that on my second sentence. My first sense is if we were an inch closer, we would burn. If we were an inch further, we would freeze. It's obvious now that those both have been proven. Both of those been proven by the same person proved that.
>> And the second sentence, >> if we were an inch closer, we would burn. And if we were an inch further away, we would freeze. Yes, that's absolutely because it'd be too cold.
That's those are my claims.
>> Yeah. What was the second sentence where you give the name of the person who proved it?
>> Dude, you're not listening. I've said it. Dude, slow down. Your heart's pounding out your chest. You need to go to the doctor pressure right now.
>> Do you think my audience is a bunch of people with like [ __ ] Alzheimer's?
>> You think that I'm hosting a bunch of like concussion victims here?
>> Everyone's just going to be able to listen and recall, you know, two seconds ago when you didn't give a name. You said it's been proven. Who proved it?
>> I have the name. It's in It's in my search history along with all the clips of you getting told you to go find it.
Go find the name. That's the reason why you have this bored up block in your face cuz you're red. You're red. You're afraid. You're red in the face right now.
>> If I'm red, it's because of how I'm embarrassed I am for you. Frankly, this is like secondhand embarrassing. I'm like cringing honestly.
>> Give me 10 seconds. Give me 10.
>> You know my That's That's what I say to my girlfriend, you know? Give me six seconds. Give me six seconds.
Wow. Maybe if I just like blatantly [ __ ] unapologetically just lie. Maybe if I just say lies, you know.
>> Okay, I got I got the source for you. Go for it.
>> So, if anybody on here goes to Google right now, and this is provably approvable claim because anybody on their phone can do this because they have, you know, their phone in their hand.
>> If we were an inch closer to the sun, we would radiate to >> Who's the person who proved it? What's the name?
>> That was the thing.
>> Maybe the Alzheimer's is this guy. Maybe that's why he can't remember the thing that he was trying to prove. That's too bad, >> dude. When I swipe out, I can still hear you talking [ __ ] I can't focus on getting the evidence if you were talking [ __ ] while I'm swiped out the [ __ ] >> Okay, okay, it's fine. We can um we can sit here we can sit here learning about um I don't know, chat, what what what in philosophy do you want to learn about?
We can start reading we can read a random page of a book. Any any suggestions? any field of philosophy that you guys want to hear about?
>> Okay, I got it. I got it.
>> Okay. Okay. Never mind. [ __ ] you, chat.
You're not getting it.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah, I got it. So, it's called the uh the BBC Science. Give me >> It's called BBC Science Focus Magazine.
They did a whole article.
>> Science Focus Magazine. What's the article?
>> How much closer to the Sun could the Earth's orbit be? And then it breaks it down.
>> How much closer to the sun could the Earth's orbit be? To quote Dr. Blitz, "This is not going to go well."
>> Oh no, dude. Oh, no. This is brutal.
>> That guy is a joke, too. You guys different ways.
>> This is going to be This is going to be like the cookage, right? This wasn't just a blender. This was like the 1.5 million blender. Okay, check it.
>> Yep, that's it right there. Go ahead.
>> Uh, it is difficult to be precise about the size of the sun's habitable zone because it depends on many complicated factors including solar aridians, atmospheric composition, cloud and weather patterns, the reflectivity or albido of the earth's surface and so on.
But the latest research actually suggests that the inner edge of the solar system's habitable zone is between 0.95 and 0.99 astronomical units. That means the earth uh would become uninhabitable if its average distance from the sun was reduced by as little as 1.5 million km, which is only about four times the distance of the moon.
>> Dude, you got to calm down. You're talking way too fast. You're embarrassing.
>> I know. I know. It's cuz I wanted to to deliver the uh >> devastating blow. So, okay, let's get clear. Let's get clear what you believe.
You believe that 1.5 million kilometers uh is an inch closer to the sun. You think that that 1.5 million km is an inch? Is that correct?
>> So this is the part where you try to make me look illogical and dumb.
>> When did I say that? Come on, dude.
You're a joke. You're not You're not You're disingenuous. You're disingenuous. moved an inch closer or an inch farther away from the sun that life wouldn't exist. The number that's cited here is 1.5 million. So, are you going to say that 1.5 million km is an inch?
>> Now, you're trying to put me in a corner. I'm not dumb, >> dude. I'm hyper aware. I know what you're trying to >> Yeah. Could you be hyper aware and then affirm that indeed 1.5 million km is an inch, which is the thing that you were asked to give a source for?
>> You want me to either fold or concede?
You want me to either concede? I just want you to be consistent with the thing that you >> want me you want me to concede or look dumb. And >> if you want to concede, that's up to you, right? But I just want you to affirm. I want you. You shout all over your plate. Now it's time for dinner.
You know, eat up.
>> Wow.
>> Go ahead and affirm it.
>> You want me to either double down.
>> You want me to double down closer to or an inch farther away.
>> But the source that you cited me, you know, it's it's 1.5 million km. Is 1.5 million km an inch? You want me to double down and look dumb or fold and concede and look like a [ __ ] That's >> That is the dilemma in front of you.
Yes.
>> At this point, I'm not D. You knew what I meant. I'll I'll I'll concede like a barely. Just a little bit.
>> Yeah. You'll concede 1.5 million kilometers. You were only off by 1 point by by four distances of the moon. You were >> I'm still But my argument that >> How about you again? Give us another >> dude. That doesn't disprove my argument.
Just cuz my estimate was slightly off does not mean my conclusion was wrong.
>> Here's here's what happened to your conclusion just now.
>> YEAH.
>> More ad how many more? I love it. I love it. That means so so wait wait wait Ian just to be clear just because my estimate was slightly off does that mean my argument is wrong about my >> I think that if you're going to call that slightly off then I mean you should probably go work for for like the Muslims translating the Quran verses you know translating the verse about like beating your wife to like a nudged her >> wow >> you should go the the type of spins that you're doing like >> no see no at this point at this point you're being an [ __ ] cuz I already saw I concede a little I already said I'm willing to concede a little bit. Now you want to just completely >> Do you think that's Do you think it's fine-tuned that if we were like millions of kilometers closer to the sun >> that life wouldn't be possible?
>> Yes, it is fine tuned cuz we wouldn't be here.
>> Yeah, dude. It's it's it's you are you looking for like a spec how narrow do you is your qualification?
>> I just want to know how is that fine tuned >> because Yeah. So, if it still allows for life to continue, then it's fine tuned because if we were too close, we would burn. If we were too far away, we'd freeze.
>> I get that. But it's like we could be way closer or way farther away.
>> Yeah, but we're still within a blunder on your part. This is kind of sad. Um, actually, my understanding of what would happen is that liquid water wouldn't exist. That's the thing that would happen is that there just wouldn't be liquid water.
>> No, my understanding is that that's like the thing, right? It's not like burning and freezing. It's like liquid water.
>> All of that would happen for one. First, if liquid water would be the most the first thing. But here I am helping you out with your own argument, >> dude. No, because you're being disingenuous, dude. You You were getting cooked. Then I made one small mistake and then you celebrate pop champagne like you won the [ __ ] FIFA World Cup.
You act like you won the Super Bowl FIFA World Cup championship.
>> I was there. I was there right next to Trump. We were like And the FIFA guy was like, "No, no, no. Move on. Move on."
Dude, you couldn't even get within five miles of Trump. Dude, you're nowhere near his level. Now, like I was saying, >> I drive through Baltimore once and the presidential limo for the Army versus Navy game drove past me.
>> Dude, Dude, Trump would laugh at you if he's if he knew how incon me.
>> Like I was saying, dude, it would just be Yeah. So, like I was saying, dude, I did make a small concession though. I was willing to concede that small point.
small a small concession of 1.5 million km.
>> No, dude. The the fine tuning still works, but you still weren't able to disprove my argument.
>> Yeah, that's not fine tuned. That's like, you know, >> that's a that's quite a good good bit of stretch to it, right?
>> Another way of proving the same exact argument is just enough there's just enough food on this earth. There's not too many people, not too many.
>> Six million people starve to death each year.
>> Well, that that's just simply not true.
I don't know if you want to go ahead and cite that. source. That's a false claim.
Obviously, you just blatantly lied in front of everybody. The same thing I just did, you just committed. So now we're both going to be sitting here looking like dumb asses.
>> You should have stopped while you were ahead. Dude, you're dead.
>> Brutal.
It's I I was wrong. It's actually more than that. It's 9 million people each year. Yeah, I'd be I'd be losing like that, too, if I got beat the [ __ ] down as hard as this.
It's like that one scene from the Joker when they're like beating the [ __ ] out of him and all he can do is have like a laughing attack. Like that's what's actually happening right here.
>> So it's 9 million people starve to death each year. Hope that helps.
>> So we were both wrong with our estimates. So So I'm willing to go down.
>> Yeah. Yeah. I was I was wrong about it.
It was actually it was actually 50% higher than I thought, >> right? It was actually way worse than I said it was, you know.
So, uh, so now that we agree that the world is not fine-tuned in terms of the amount of food, uh, what's your next piece of evidence?
>> Yeah. So, if we're not overpopulated to where there's or we're not at the point where there's too many men or too many women, you see how it just balances out like we're not overpopulated enough chance for a man and a woman.
>> Y each time. So, but in terms of I mean, you know, we are starving to death, right? Nine million people starve to death each year.
That's um that that's a that's a bit of an ethic moral um argument you you can make. But um that's a that's a little bit off topic though.
>> That's actually on topic, right? It's not finely tuned. If 9 million people starve to death, it's not finally tuned.
>> Wow. I knew you were going to go down this rabbit hole. That was cute, dude.
Okay, man. All right. Yeah. Good job.
>> You brought it up, by the way, just in case you forgot that. You said that we have the right amount of food and then I was like, "No, we don't. 6 million people starve to death each year." And then you were like, and then I pulled it up and it was nine million. And you were like, "So you concede?" And I was like, "Yeah, I can see that the problem's actually worse for you."
>> Wow. So So like, uh, snicker doodle or chocolate chip? You want a cookie? Just to be clear, do you want a cookie? You want a pat on the back? Cuz >> you got one. Dude, the point is that this still >> every Ian chat member is now entitled to a pat on the back. You know, every every take your pat on the back.
>> You want a You want You want a pat on the back? You want You want So you want an Oreo or chips a Hoy or which one do you like personally? Now let's go ahead.
I'm an Oreo fan. You know, I'm vegan.
>> The point is is that still even with the 9 million people, that's sad that that happens. But it's not like everybody passes away. You know, there's enough that life is still sustainable. There's enough water here. There's enough animals. There's enough >> 9 million people.
>> Dude, stop. I'm not making a moral claim.
>> Only what is it like [ __ ] 18 times the the population of Wyoming. Like >> now now you're trying to make me look like a bad I'm not making a moral claim.
>> I'm not a piece of [ __ ] I'm not an [ __ ] Not saying I'm not saying that 9 million is not a big amount. That's too 9 million too many. But there's it's not everybody. There's still enough people that are coming.
>> How many people would need to be starving to death for you to think it's not finally tuned?
>> Um enough to where it's outweighs the amount of people um you know born and alive. You know what I mean? If because then because then then we wouldn't be able to uh to survive as a species. So it's Dude, I'm not making a moral claim.
Now you're trying to turn this into a moral. You're telling me that that 131 million people could die of starvation each year >> and you would think that it's still finely tuned. 131 million people.
>> Dude, I'm not making a moral argument.
I'm not making the moral.
>> I just want to know. Can I You did say that. Can I just get confirmation that 131 million people could die each year?
>> This is [ __ ] >> This is insane, dude.
>> Finally tuned.
>> This is insane, dude. I'm not making a moral claim. That's sad. Obviously, we can all agree.
>> That was your claim.
>> I still do think it's Oh my goodness, dude. You're just You're making this harder than it needs to be, dude. This is ridiculous. No, I'm not saying that's okay, but I'm saying technically, yes, that would still be finely tuned. I'm I'm going to I'm No, no, no. I'm I'm remaining consistent. I'm remaining consistent. Even even when I look like the bad guy, I'm still going to remain consistent because that would still be funny.
>> You could be debating a Nazi about ethics and they could say, "Yeah, actually, I would. you know, if I found out I was Jewish, I would think that I deserve death. Um, and it's like, you know, that's consistent, but it's like obviously like [ __ ] false, right?
Like, just because you're consistent doesn't help you, right? Like consistently biting bullets is just embarrassing.
>> I'm not making a [ __ ] moral claim.
That's what I'm trying to tell you.
Okay.
>> Claim. You're making a functionality claim.
>> You're saying it's finely tuned for life, but tons of people starve. If your body needs 2,000 calories a day to survive, but you're only able to get like, you know, 1,900, that's you're still going to make it to the next day.
You know, it's just 2,000 is like the, you know what I mean? You get what I'm saying? Like, it's not a beautiful thing, but still, it still allows for life to continue. That's what I'm saying. So, even if all those people unfortunately were starving to death, life would still be sustainable.
Therefore, it's >> the fact that 9 million people die is almost kind of like a diet even. Dude, stop trying to [ __ ] make this moral argument where you're paying me out to be this monster or this bad. I'm this horrible person just because just because I'm being consistent with my >> You absolutely you showed up with the the [ __ ] like caricature drawing of yourself um as as like Darth Vader from Disneyland, right? Like you made yourself the villain. You did this to yourself.
>> You you've embarrassed yourself on the on the technical aspect. Now you're trying to make a moral argument.
>> What's one thing that I embarrassed myself on?
>> Yeah. So you estimated wrongly that 6 million I was wrong. It's actually worse for cut off. It's actually way worse for you. Apparently it's three million starvation debts a year worse for you.
>> But that's not >> Yeah, you're right. Your position is even less tenable than I said.
>> No, Ian. I'm not that's not what I'm extracting from my point. What I'm extracting from that is you were still off with your estimate. I'm not saying that whether it is >> I'm not saying whether it favored my argument or your argument. I'm just saying that you were still off. So >> totally grant that. I think what I was thinking I think it's six million children die each year. I think that's the stat.
>> I'm not going into that. That's too serious of that's too sensitive. I'm not going into that because now you're going to really try to make a moral claim making me look bad. I'm just going to go ahead and move to the next topic. We have enough animals and enough vegetables and enough water to um to sustain to sustain. You know what I mean? Like if we had just few chickens or not enough uh cows or not enough water or not enough crops and vegetables or not enough farmers or not enough, you know, we wouldn't be able to um sustain life. So >> yeah, so there's a there's like a good explanation about uh the population size that comes from um what is it? It's a [ __ ] dynamical systems or not dynamical system. Um differential equations, that's what it is. Uh I knew it had like a D name. Um differential equations, populations expand uh towards the size that the the environment can sustain and then they stop expanding. So, Earth has a carrying capacity in terms of the amount of humans. It deals with, you know, how much food is available and how much space is available, these sorts of considerations. But then, you know, the population is just going to tend towards that. If you go over that, well, there just isn't enough food for people as we're seeing.
>> Yeah.
>> And if you if you go under that, then you're just going to keep on expanding until you're at that point.
>> Yeah. But we're nowhere we're nowhere near that point is my my point that I'm trying we're nowhere near.
>> I think we're kind of close to it. But I think we're in the same order.
>> I think you're kind of bullshitting right now.
>> So, what is the carrying capacity of the Earth?
>> Yeah. It's like when you get on when you get on the elevator and it's a certain amount of weight or when you're on a bridge in a car, there's a certain amount of weight.
>> It seems to be 12 billion. So, yeah, I think we're we're like right up. We're coming right up on it.
>> You that that doesn't sound confident enough for me to uh to take to take and move to the next part. You know that?
What do you mean we're coming up on it?
Are you saying it's going to happen next year or like in a hundred years or a thousand years or what do you what are you saying?
>> Uh uh we could do like the estimation if you want >> cuz I just don't think we're any I don't think we're going to hit that.
>> By the way, if you want like a real source for this sciencealert.com is the source.
>> Yeah, >> the article name is um Earth's population has surpassed the planet's capacity study suggests. Um but then it talks about uh studies that the capacity the absolute capacity is 12 billion that there's capacities that you can estimate based on like the the amount that gets consumed but then there's like this absolute that would hold even if like even regardless of consumption level >> that's 12 billion >> yeah that's fair yeah I believe that and that still is not an imminent threat that's not a problem we would have to worry about >> saying that it's an imminent threat I'm saying there's a naturalistic explanation >> no and I understand. I'm glad you mentioned it. But I my response to that is that doesn't disprove my argument of finetuning. You know what I mean? We're still within our lifetime. We are still >> a fine tuned thing.
>> Just the amount just the right amount of land, just the right amount of food, crops, animals for the >> number of people are growing.
>> And in fact, like we're under, right?
And also I mean, you know, why did God make it such that we need to eat food in the first place? Why would that be a relevant limiting factor?
>> What's I don't see a problem with eating food. What's your your argument hinges on your argument?
>> Would you rather not eat food ever again, but you like photosynthesize um and in doing so you stop like millions of people dying each year or would you do you think food is more valuable than like the millions of people that starve to death each year?
>> Your your argument your argument fails to lift off the ground. It fails to even get started because you're implying that eating food is a bad thing. I don't see >> I just want to know like if you had to choose, right?
>> Your argument's already failed before it's even got to >> Oh, my bad. It already failed, right?
Oh, that's my mistake, dude. It already like poor what's your what? Rich poor 84 uh has decreed that it failed. So I guess the argument's over. Yeah. My bad.
My bad.
>> No, it's like it's like it's like an aborted baby. It doesn't even get a chance like you believe in you believe in abortion. So I'll go ahead.
You want to make >> you want to make me look like an [ __ ] But >> yo, you think that one's going to go well for you?
>> No, we funniest [ __ ] video on Reddit the other day. This one actually might even be like worth sharing. Um, what is it? It's uh >> Oh, so you don't even know what you're talking about, guys. You just damaged your own credit video.
>> It's a great ass video. This video is like incredible.
>> Embarrassing. Oh, yeah. I just seen something. Oh, the Alzheimer's kicked in. That was embarrassing, dude. Do better. Come on now.
>> I'm literally scrolling looking for it as we >> Are you okay? Are you okay?
>> Are you Are you having like a [ __ ] moment? Are you good?
>> Do you need me? Do you need the keys?
Are you impatient? I can I can give you the keys if you want.
>> And to the 600 people watching this, >> you want the the keys? Oh, this is >> This is the guy you guys look up to and watch.
>> Oh, yeah. Okay. Wait, I found it. I found it. This [ __ ] This [ __ ] is so funny, dude.
>> Are you okay? This is the guy 500, 600 people watch this.
Why do proabortion people act like this at at 8:30 in the morning? But then it's like the funniest video. It's like the single funniest video I've ever seen.
It's such a good video.
>> Yo, check this [ __ ] out.
Oh, wait. Sorry. It's um It has volume.
>> Hello, man. Do you know what happens at this >> Oh, sorry. I'm sorry. I [ __ ] >> Hello, man. Do you know what happens at this place?
>> Shut the [ __ ] up. Thank you guys. Thank you.
>> God bless you, man.
>> So, she's so based, dude. Oh my god.
Let's watch it one more time. This [ __ ] is so funny.
>> Come on, man. Do you know what happens at this place?
>> Shut the [ __ ] up.
>> Thank you guys.
>> Thank you.
>> God bless you, man.
>> [ __ ] you.
>> Incredible. Incredible. Oh my god, it's so good.
>> Yeah. So, that woman is demonic and possessed and she's been brainwashed.
No, she's been I feel bad for her. She's been brainwashed. Yeah. No, I feel bad for her.
>> She's hydrated. She's in her lane.
>> Yeah. I just feel bad. She's misled.
She's misled just like you are. So, she's actually >> You don't want to get cooked on that one, too, bud.
>> She's misled just like you.
>> I I promise you don't have the boots for that, hike, >> dude. I do this for a living. You've embarrassed yourself three times.
>> You do this for a living. You do. You do this for a living.
>> I quit. I quit my job. This is my >> Oh, jeez. You should see if you can't get the job back. I don't think you have a future in this.
>> You've embarrassed yourself three times.
I'll make it.
>> What topic are you strongest on? Please tell me it's not the God topic.
>> Uh well, I'm decent on the God topic.
I'm good on uh politics. I'm good on just anything in anything in life, you know, that somebody has a ridiculous, easily disprovable worldview on, I'm able to uh to debunk. I do it on uh race, religion, politics, God, food, diet, nutrition, even sports. But sports sports is not objective. So that's just kind of for fun.
>> I got a quick question for you. Uh let's say that there's like an IVF clinic burning to the ground. Um, and then on on one side, on your left side, there's this like tray of embryos. There's two of them to be precise. And then on the other one, it's like a crying, screaming human child. Now, you know, because you work there that these embryos are going to get implanted. You know that they have the they're going to be birthed.
Uh, which one you say, Ben?
>> You said on my left there's a tray.
>> On the left there's a tray of two embryos, frozen embryos. They're going to be implanted. They're going to get birthed. On the right, you know, human child. Which one you save then?
>> How many embryos were there?
>> Two.
>> And there's one human child.
>> Yeah.
>> Oh, wow. That's That's tough. That's like asking >> It for sure shouldn't be, right?
>> It for sure is. There's an argument on both sides. What? That's why it's a question to be. You wouldn't be asking me a question if it was >> That's why your position is psychotic.
>> Calm the [ __ ] dude. That's like asking me if I have a cow right here, but then I have a hamburger.
>> Ah, save me. Save me. Save me. And then the embryos are like, >> "No, cuz what you're asking me is equivalent to if I have fruit, two apples to my right, but then I have a plant to my left." You get what I'm saying? Like, it's a tough argument to make.
>> You're trying to figure out what to have for lunch. You know, on the right you have like a [ __ ] apple and then on the left you have like two seeds.
>> Yeah, that that's that's equivalent. But it wouldn't be to have for lunch. No, no, no, no. That No, that is that.
>> Tasty seeds. Tasty seeds. Uh, >> no, no, no, no, no. It's not to have for lunch is to think about the future. Like your your analogy was good, but then you sort of extracted the wrong part from it. So, I would choose the two seeds. I would ch I might actually No, no, hold on a second. Hold on, dude. Because you're trying to do this gota moment.
You're trying to do this cheap gotcha moment. I know what you do. I do this for a living. I see this coming from a mile away. You want a gotcha moment. You want to You know what my answer is going to be, but you're trying to make me look ridiculous. You know what it is.
I actually almost don't even want to say it cuz you're just going to use it for a gotcha moment. But of course, it's going to be the embryos. You know, we're taking the embryos. Obviously, it's going to be the embryos and that's why I didn't want to say you don't believe that. You wouldn't You wouldn't do that.
>> You want a gotcha moment. That's all you want.
>> You wouldn't do that. You're lying.
You're lying. You wouldn't do that. I don't believe you.
>> I believe that you're better than that even. I don't think that you would do that.
>> You want a gotcha moment so bad, dude.
And I'm, like I said, I'm consistent with my view even when I look ridicul.
So, yes, we're taking the embryos cuz it's two lives. It's two lives versus one. So obviously you're going to say would you rather save two million people or what?
>> You're [ __ ] psychotic, right? Like you're you're genuinely unwell if you would do that.
>> Are you okay? Would Okay, let me ask.
>> That's like literally insane that you would like let the human child like the crying screaming four-year-old like burn alive. That's that's like kind of insane.
>> Hold on a second. So would you rather save one million people or two million people? Are you okay? You know the answer is going to be two million. Dude, be be genuine.
>> Yep. I'd save two million people.
>> Okay. That's what I said. Case closed, shut, you know, argument open, shut, case closed. You know what I mean? So, >> the notable thing is that there's a disalogy.
>> No, there's no difference. It's the exact same thing whether they're just >> I mean, I think the I don't think the embryos are substantially morally valuable.
>> Oh, they are obviously that's sick.
>> That's sick for you to even imply otherwise. Yeah, they are.
>> Okay. I'll I'll do more than imply otherwise. I'll just state it directly.
I don't think that the embryos are particularly morally valuable. I don't think that they have zero value. I don't think that they're very valuable.
>> So, you've already demonstrated that they are because you in in your analogy, you made it clear that they're going to be birthed, that they're going to be birthed. You made it clear. So, they're basically two babies at that point given your analogy.
>> You've already presupposed that they're going to be birthed.
>> Yeah. And this this sperm that I'm I'm going to go [ __ ] jerk off into the toilet. Yeah. It's it's basically already [ __ ] trillion babies.
>> So, the analogy you gave said that they're going to be birthed. They're guaranteed, dude. So why are you trying to extract that part away from it? And then >> if you knew that every single sperm cell in the cumot that you were about to release was going to get [ __ ] >> IF selected.
>> Now you're changing.
>> Do you think that would make it wrong to to finish?
>> You're changing the question after I answered it cuz you you claimed that they would you claimed that they were going to be birthed. Now you're saying that they won't be birthed. What are you talking about, dude?
>> Obviously. No, I'm saying that they Yeah, the hypothetical is that they do get birthed.
>> Exactly. So that's different than what you're saying now cuz you're just talking about >> That's exactly the same as what I'm saying now.
>> No, it's way different. No, because just sperm sperm on itself is not going to be be birthed. Obviously, dude, that doesn't make any sense.
>> Sorry. Wait, is it what what about if it gets uh there's a guarantee that it's going to produce an embryo?
>> Then that's different. Then that's different. Yeah, that's different. So that's different. It makes a huge difference. You you >> So So there you are at the IVF clinic.
It's burning to the ground, you know, you're about to finish. Uh, but then there's like fire going. Um, you you zip your pants up and wash your hands obviously because you're not a freak now. You can either go back and and [ __ ] finish your load. Um, which will then get turned into like a trillion babies. Uh, or you can like save the crying, screaming human child. Which one you doing now?
>> Look, now you're adjusting it to make me look ridicul.
>> I just want to know like which one of those would you say? Now you're trying >> The only thing that got cooked was the child that you wouldn't save.
>> Wow, dude. Wow. Now, now you're trying to change it to make it more ridiculous cuz I I I I dogwalked you on the initial question. It was a good question, but now you're making it this like hypothetical.
>> You bit the bullet. It went off in your mouth. You blew your own brains out. It was It was quite devastating. Honestly, I haven't seen a debate performance like this since um >> That's why you had to I guess the beginning of the stream with the one guy. Who do you think chat was a better debater? Carl or Rich?
>> You think you think Carl or Rich Poor would win in a debate? Do you think you think Who do you guys got?
>> You said that one guy.
>> Maybe rich poor. No, I don't know.
>> I think that rich poor has as the has better rhetoric to Carl than Carl does in such a way that I think that Carl Carl just kind of has the posture where he kind of sounds like his name. Now you remember his name. I think that I think that rich poor would probably beat >> Carl. That's all I'm thinking.
>> Some people in chat are saying that they have Carl. So I I guess >> I don't give a [ __ ] about chat, dude.
You that you couldn't even beat me. Why would I care about your chat? They definitely can't beat me if you can't beat you. I dematerialized you. You're no longer in existence after what I did to you. Point after we humiliated you and we dissected you.
We dissected your worldview >> and all you can do is weeze. You've been reduced to wheezing.
>> Your chat looks up to you and you couldn't even beat me. So why the [ __ ] would I care about your chat, >> right? I didn't beat you. I disintegrated you.
>> I I erased you from the timeline even.
You know, I put you back into your dad's balls is what happens.
>> Dude, you got dog walk. You have a good day. People are people are messaging me saying you cooked E and you dogw walk him. This is You embarrass yourself. You have >> They're They're in my DM right now.
>> Name one. Okay.
All right. He left.
Screenshot one and come back.
All right. Well, make sure you're tapping on that screen share with your friends to know the good stuff. Let's read some supers.
Ray, thanks so much for the super chat.
My favorite way to defeat tag is to run a parody argument. Watch them acknowledge the fallacy, thus arguing against their own views. True. It is funny because it's like so easy to run the parody. You just say, "Well, you know, I have um I believe in the [ __ ] I I believe in the evolutionary process that gives me reliable sense data." And then what do they say? What do they say?
Oh, how do you know that? That's circular. Um well, you you're you use your senses given to you by God to to arrive at the knowledge of God. So, it would be circular on your view, too.
And then you walk out, right? Like you just obliterated them.
Ray, thank you so much. Appreciate it. I always love when people try to argue against B theory by just presupposing the truth of A theory. Truly an intellectual titan. You think you think all moments exist, but but so you think the you think the future relative to now exists?
Reductio. That's a reductio. That you think the future relative to now exists given the fact that you think that all moments exist.
Brutal, unreoverable.
JM, thanks so much for the super chat.
Right back at you.
Ray, thanks so much for the super chat.
Cooked on B theory. Now he wants to move on. Can't blame him. Should have moved on quicker in my opinion. Kane, thanks so much for the super chat. So, Patrick, of time is an illusion similar to self.
I don't know if I'm bought into the self is the illusion stuff, but um the the specific name of the view is that you want to say that um you're like an idealist about time. You think that time is mind dependent. Um or rewind. You want to say passage is mind dependent. You're an idealist about passage. That the coming and going of moments in time, that's a mind dependent phenomena. All these times are real, but the coming and going of them, the the appearance of them coming and going, that's mind dependent. Uh it's called idealism about passage.
Ray, thanks so much for the super chat.
His pastor told him uh that atheists presuppose naturalism. Now he's confused. True. True.
But even like not all not even all uh naturalists or materialists, right? You could be like a naturalist and be like a honestly like like a dualist even, right? The only thing you couldn't be is a supernaturalist.
Um Alo Emporium, thanks so much for the $2 on YouTube. Appreciate you. Appreciate that. Uh Ray, thanks so much for the super chat. Uh, strivite stones are even worse, lol. The kidney makes them and they become uh infested with bacteria and destroy your kidneys. Why would God do this? It's cuz he wants you in heaven. And the only way to get you, you know, you can't you don't get the angel treatment, right? You don't get the you don't get the angel of death coming down to touch you. You get the [ __ ] infested kidney rock that kills you.
[ __ ] you.
Um, oh, wait. Here's what I'll do. Here's what I'll do.
Um, uh, I have I have tons of supers to read. Uh, but I am ending stream. So, I'm I'm dropping a new video right now.
Uh, it's titled I use Superman to explain why the Trinity doesn't make sense.
Do you think Clark Kent and Superman are two persons or one person? Why would God turn over control to Satan?
>> He didn't turn over control to Satan.
Satan in the cuck chair. Yeah, sure. So then Satan beat the [ __ ] out of God. It sounds >> Hey, how's it going?
>> Snap. Let me up. That's crazy.
>> Hey, what's up, man? My name is Ian as well. Just letting you know.
>> Whoa, that's cool. Well, I in solidarity. Uh, yeah. What religion are you?
>> Um, I don't believe in religion cuz all religions are biased to too many opinions. I'm just straight up relationship with Jesus and just uh >> Yeah, go check that out. Go uh I'm sorry. I started watching it myself. It was such good content. You guys should watch it, too. It's going to be great.
Um, it's uh it's the one I remember this guy specifically. I remember that this debate was uh I remember that this guy was incapable of of engaging in good faith and that he got like totally [ __ ] decimated.
Many such cases. Um, but you guys should all go check it out. It's live on my YouTube right now. I'm going to finish reading super chats though. Ray, thanks so much for super chat. Ian's rhetorical hog. uh is up in his lungs. That's why he's wheezing. Yeah, it's so far down.
It went down the wrong pipe even.
Right plate, thanks so much for super chat. Rich poor is a well-known troll.
Please drop him.
Uh I don't know. It's good content. Uh Fact Junior roll. Thanks so much for chat. Bro laughs uh like Spongebob when he needs water. I didn't watch Spongebob. You guys are going to hate me. Uh Spaghetti, thanks so much for tube chat. I didn't know that. Uh, weasels weeze. If a weasel wheezes, how many weasel wheezes?
There's there's a tongue twister in there, I think. Wheezing weasels weeze very very wrongly.
Something like that. I don't know. [ __ ] all of you. Don't forget that. Never happened. Possum Punks, thanks so much for super chat. Calling him calendar man is way too generous, bro. is unnamed Joker goon number three. That's That's true. He's not even named, but apparently he is named because he's a well-known troll.
Alo Emporium, thanks so much for the super chat. Uh caller is correct. I stood on a step ladder once and burst into flames.
Oh, sure. I get it. That's funny.
Spaghetti, thanks so much for the super chat. Uh seven month cooler membership.
That's really cool. Uh we have wheezing.
Can Ian catch coughing?
That dude was like coughing when he had to concede. You'll notice that the wheezing really really toned down. He was like when he was like begging begging for his ethos. He was like, "Please please don't make me concede this. Please don't make me concede the point." Um he he stopped wheezing. You know, it was an interesting phenomena.
Senuin soldier, thanks so much for super chat. Hey, look, a Trojan source uh live and in the wild.
True. Ray, thanks so much for super chat. Uh caller used bottomless stupidity. Uh, it was not very effective.
Unending stupidity.
Um, JB, uh, Tai 8VF, thanks so much for super chat. Ian for the win. Another caller revealed for the desperate dishonesty. You know, thinking about like the the the debate. Um, sorry, this just popped into my mind. I was I was saying like who who do we have winning?
Um, Carl or uh Richport 84? Um, there's I I hearken back. This is so funny. This is like deep lore. Uh, do you guys remember when when Parker and Dean set up the debate between like QTOP and Platform? Holy [ __ ] that was so funny. It was like It was like peak Tik Tok content. You get like the two wacko ops debating each other. Oh my, that was like elite. There there must be a recording of that somewhere. Uh, platform versus QTOP.
I don't even know what happened to platform.
Yo, they do have it. It's on Tik Tok live poster. Rest in peace. Um, Parker plus QT top versus platform debate from uh 4:30 24. Damn, I missed that. Um, that [ __ ] was elite.
Cara, thanks so much for the super chat.
Um, I legitimately thought this was a clip and not a live debate because I feel like I've seen this guy a hundred times.
I'm sorry. I feel like uh there's like certain names of people that come by every now and then, but I I can't place the name to the face, to the voice, to the debate strategy.
the rapid squirrel sage. Thanks so much for super chat. Whezzy had to switch to the coarse tuning argument. That's really funny. Yeah, it's coarsely tuned.
It's quite robust actually. It's like it's built like like [ __ ] Baymax, right? Like it's it's just like you got quite a bit of stretch to it.
Ray, thanks so much for the goat trophy.
Appreciate you. Thanks so much for the other goat trophy. Thanks so much for the $2. Uh, he breathes like RFK.
He It's like the [ __ ] crypt keeper over here.
Ray, thank you so much for the super chat. Lol. I thought you said IDF clinic, not IVF clinic burning down. I was like, why do anything?
That's funny. Apparently, they have um I don't know. This might be I hope this isn't just like spreading like baseless [ __ ] conspiracy theories. Um, but I think I looked into this and it was like apparently true that when when like an IDF soldier dies that they'll they'll go and like extract like the [ __ ] semen from the corpse that they'll like put like a rod in their ass to to make them like expel the semen.
Um, that's pretty gross, but I don't know.
I mean, I guess I don't think that there's anything I I I guess I think that that's probably like the least morally wrong thing that takes place in the IDF. So, Dr. Fudge, thanks so much for the super chat.
You're trying to do or wait, sorry, you're trying to do this. You're trying to do that, brother. They succeeded. you 64th wit. That's funny.
Ray, thank you so so much for the super chat.
Bro loves embryos but probably also takes antibiotics when he gets an infection. Life is sacred, huh? Yeah, it's all fine-tuned for life. Me as soon as I'm in a slight amount of discomfort.
Uh, can you find me the Pepto-Bismol?
Dr. Dr. Fudge, thanks so much for the super chat. Carl versus Rich Poor is a question of you uh like whining or if you like grandstanding. Well, here's my I think I think grandstanding beats whining. I think that when you're like dog [ __ ] at debate like Carl and uh rich poor are I think that I honestly think that you could probably get farther than you should be able to just by grandstanding with a lot of confidence.
Um, okay. I dropped my newest video.
It's live on my YouTube channel. Go check it out. Go give it a watch. Go give it a Do you think Clark Oh, Ken, I already played this. I already played this one. Um, but go give it a like. Go give the thumbs up. Go do all that stuff. It's going to be great. It's going to be fantastic.
You're going to enjoy it. It's going to be an experience.
Otherwise, if you if you don't want to watch the new video, who's live or It was so sad seeing Justin Blitz live yesterday. They looked like they were having so much fun. [ __ ] I wish I I wish I showed up.
I guess Monkey Boy's live.
That's a good one. I'd plug Dean, but it's like, you know, does Dean really need my plugin anymore?
Yeah, dude made it. Good for him. Um, oh yeah, evidence first. Uh, Mama Tai Chi, I don't know that one, but okay, sure. All right. Uh, I'm heading on out. See you guys. Have fun.
Related Videos
0:33
Philosophy
Open Tab is a new interview series hosted by Substack co-founder Hamish McKenzie
Hypeflicksss
1K views•2026-05-21
27:53
Philosophy
Street Epistemology: Maritza (1) | Student Demands the Truth (Valuation)
magnabosco210
124K views•2019-06-27
1:18
Philosophy
Nel Noddings | Feminist philosophy and education | Whiteboard Video
studioninety9110
3K views•2019-10-13
18:20
Philosophy
LEGAL METHOD CLASS: Law, Order, Justice & Freedom | Understanding the Concept of Law in Society
LAW-MADE-SIMPLE.c
371 views•2025-11-22
1:26:44
Philosophy
Does evolution DEBUNK morality?
MajestyofReason
7K views•2025-03-06
47:07
Philosophy
How the Gospels Pass the Historical Test | Tim and Lydia McGrew
TheAaronRennShow
713 views•2025-12-02
1:03:26
Philosophy
Pluriversal Design SIG Book Club 13: bell hooks' Theory as Liberatory Practice
pluriversaldesignsig2851
777 views•2022-05-24
1:37:10
Philosophy
NICK LAND MEETS THEORY UNDERGROUND (w/ Michael Downs and David McKerracher)
PhilosophyPortal
9K views•2023-10-23
Trending
5:07
Philosophy
One Must Imagine Sisyphus Happy
vlogbrothers
61K views•2026-07-21
25:15
Business
Future of Taylor Farms
maighstirtarot5385
11K views•2026-07-21
12:30
Business
The Downfall of OnePlus!
techwiser
65K views•2026-07-21
23:12
Engineering
My Friend Locked Up The Engine On His K-Swapped Bug...
boostedboiz
128K views•2026-07-21