In philosophical debates about God's existence, the burden of proof rests on those making positive claims (that God exists), not on those denying them; since there is no empirical evidence for God's existence, the claim that God created the universe cannot be justified without such evidence, making atheism the more epistemically reasonable position.
Install our extension to search inside any video instantly.
There is no evidence for godAdded:
I' been crawling through everyone.
If you got existing ceiling in No more.
Hey guys and chat visible. I think this is the best we're gonna do.
in the sky.
>> She's such a good cat.
We're going to do a lot more of a chill stream today.
>> Listen to people's arguments. Ask them more questions.
>> Little bit more Socratic method. Little clarity. You want communion while I'm choking on disparity. They said love, but then they sentimented over it benevolent. You're an impotent omnic, but you couldn't intervene. So every tragedy is just a plot twist in your perfect scheme. I'm not your villain.
Calia sent five.
>> Super chat.
>> Kira, graduation was awesome. Red, white, and all hell. That's funny.
>> This song was made by Suno.
You never doubt your existing turn.
>> Yeah, she's an absolute lap cat.
We'll get a um an angle on the other camera that shines on her.
>> I'll do the after stream.
All right, let's get some callers in here.
Let's do this thing.
If you're aistic to any degree, request up. We'll have that conversation.
I don't care which god it is, which religion. Let's just have the conversation.
Yep. You you can request up and if you're a Phil bro, you're going to have to explain to me why I should grant logic without epistemic justification.
Whatever argument you guys provide, explain why I should grant your side over mine. I can't request. Click the little people at the bottom, the two little people, and then click the request button.
There you go.
All right. Not. How are you?
>> Okay. There you go. Uh, sorry. I'm not doing bad. How about you?
>> Good, man. You're over there 18.
>> Yeah.
>> All right. Which god do you believe in?
>> Well, I'm just trying to learn cuz I don't I've been up here a few times and I've learned a lot. But so what I've heard is there's no evidence that, you know, J ever existed. Like that's what you're saying, right?
>> I am a mythicist. Yes. That is not a typical thing to believe.
>> Isn't there like Roman records of I think it's Tac Tacitus.
>> Tacitus is in contemporary and his records were edited. People edited to add in Christ.
>> Really?
>> Mhm. You can actually see the writing yourself. Um if you go to >> Yeah. Can I have evidence for that?
>> Yeah. Yeah, here I'll bring it up on the screen.
Let me get it up real quick. Um there's a website created by a friend of mine and his um co-author. Um and they are Stalometry um what do you call it? Engineers.
They're data scientists. And so if I bring up Tacitus, I can show the edited writing.
So, let's going ahead and let's get a new window cap.
Sorry, gonna have to set this up live.
Oh, while you're doing that, were you ever a Christian or anything? Yes, I grew up as a Christian Messianic Jew. My dad is a preacher.
Oh, shoot.
So, Here's what we're gonna do.
Here is the writing. Okay. And you can see here the literal editings. If I zoom it in, you can see the actual editings there off to the side. And that's where they added Christ.
Like literally added it.
>> He did not It's It's completely interpolated. You see where it says Christians there off to the side? It was literally added in >> uh Tacitus never met him. Josephus never met him. Ply never met him. They were writing about what people believed. Like Josephus also wrote about Hercules.
Doesn't mean Hercules exists, right?
>> Mhm.
>> Right.
>> Yeah. Dang. Wow. So like uh but so you're saying that means that like uh the disciples never existed. Paul never existed, right? Like that's what you're saying. I'm under the impression as of right now that Paul never existed and that Marcion is who where all his writings come from. Um, but I'm also ignorant. So, I'm too ignorant to make strong claims on that.
I don't have any justification to believe he existed, but I also can't argue for the non-existence yet.
>> Mhm.
Dang. Wow. Okay. Uh, I'll have to look into that. Is is that the same is it kind of the same with um because I know that a lot of them like the reason that now people believe that Jesus existed is because the Rens were like >> so the reason that there's a consensus is a almost all of the western world believes in it >> and that would be a massive [ __ ] thing. The reason it spread though um you have many reasons. You had nine crusades specific to religion, the religious cause where they just slaughtered people for not believing.
You had the edicts um one edict in particular of Theodosia where he imprisoned anyone and killed off people that were not nine Christian. You have so many instances where people were just imprisoned for not being the correct Christian or not being Christian at all.
And then they spread that through crusades. That's why it's so popular in the west and it's not in India. It's not in China. It's only the western world, brother.
Mhm. That's kind of crazy bec and like Yeah. I I'm don't know. I think a few It was a few months months ago I like joined up here and stuff and I was and then I did it like again like like a month or two ago, but every time I come back I'm like >> yeah, every time I come back >> Sorry, they're saying my audio is a little quiet. I'm gonna edit that real quick. It's okay. Like I'm always trying to learn more and stuff, but >> yeah.
>> Yeah, I always learn a lot from these.
>> I um I So I became an atheist because I have an open mind. I was talking to um an atheist witch and um I was trying to spread the gospel of Jesus and she was like, "Why should I believe in Jesus?"
And I was like, "Well, the gospels." And she's like, "Looking at the Gospels."
Guess what I found out after looking at the Gospels? They're completely anonymous. We have no clue who wrote them. The names were attributed in the second century by a church father named Aronyaeus. So I have no reason to believe the gospels on top of they were written decades up to a hundred years after the supposed events. Do you remember the first two sentences I said in this conversation?
>> Um not no I don't think so.
>> Right. Word for word. Right. So now tell your kids to tell their kids to tell their kids to tell their kids to write down everything that you remember me saying word for word and that that's going to be law. kind of unrealistic, isn't it?
>> Yeah.
>> It's a big game of telephone.
>> Yeah. No, I get that. And like I think it it was because I was I was trying to learn about how uh the reason I became like a lot I would say maybe agnostic is because I was learning about how uh science can coexist with Genesis especially because the flood, the big fish, the creation, everything. And I learned I was like, "Okay."
>> Oh, you mean is I was like, "Okay, so one of these is completely untrue. Now, which one has more evidence?" And >> yeah, a global flood is literally impossible.
>> I know. And well, and let's say let's say it was possible and he just added water and then took it away afterwards somehow. We would see you would expect to see at least a little bit of evidence for that.
>> There'd be sedimentary rock layer which does not exist.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah. There's no evidence for it at all.
There are local floods which the story of Noah came from the epic of Gilgamesh, the first story ever written.
>> Mhm.
Yeah, that's hard. Well, so does that mean that you were um in like a Christian family as a atheist or >> I mean my mother is still Christian.
>> When did you become an atheist?
>> Three years almost three years ago.
>> Oh wow. So it hasn't been super long then.
>> I'm a baby.
Did you Did you like tell your parents or whatever or how'd that go?
>> Oh, I'm very open. Oh, yeah.
>> I don't hide it at all. Yeah, I love the shock factor, actually.
>> I live in the Bible belt, so telling people that I'm an atheist and a witch is hilarious.
>> Yeah, that's kind of a like a harder part for me, I guess, because like my entire family is I don't know. I just don't care enough about people's opinions.
>> Yeah, that makes sense.
>> I'm lucky there.
>> Yeah, I gotta go, man. So, uh >> yeah, have a good one, brother.
>> You, too.
>> All right, let's get spoken in here.
My parents, that's where I came from.
How you doing, spoken?
>> I'm fine. And what about you?
>> Doing all right. You're over the age of 18?
Yeah, I strongly believe and my argument is that why would you not believe in God?
>> Which god do you believe in?
>> Because the one who has created this universe.
>> Okay. Yeah. There's no evidence for it.
That's why I don't believe in it.
>> So, so then there is a question arises that how did atom uh come into existence?
>> Why would I believe Adam existed? What evidence is there for that?
uh because uh 13 13.8 8 billion years ago uh big bang happened and before that was what I mean what was there there is no any such thing that we can measure >> incorrect so we know about the big bang thanks to radiation cosmic microwave microwave background radiation so what we had was a hot dense state that expanded there was still something energy energy always existed >> so my fundamental question would be is that then how Because we can ask even science cannot be you know uh even science can be questioned.
>> Mhm.
>> So let's assume a chair. So if somebody comes to you and he says that uh you know this is a chair and if he asks you that uh I mean how did it I mean how did it come into existence then how would you explain him?
>> Yeah matter is an emergent property from energy and chairs are created by people.
So when that first matter I mean come from >> I don't know energy fields.
>> So that means you are unable to answer this question.
>> Correct.
>> What if a religious guy comes to you and he says that uh uh there is a creator.
>> I'd say prove it.
>> And uh so it's all about believe. I mean you just have to believe in it. If you believe that's your no no because >> beliefs aren't choices.
>> So uh okay so did universe always exist?
I mean did universe always exist?
>> Yes, energy can't be created.
>> So that is uh the law that have been created by human beings but it is not laws are descriptions of the universe.
They're not prescribed. We did not create them.
>> But how do you know it is going to But how do you know that it is going to be ultimate?
>> I don't know. But you're the one claiming that a magical sky fairy did it.
>> No. No. I I do not say that.
>> The person that believes in the magical unicorn is the one that has to prove the magical unicorn. I don't know. Does not mean therefore God.
Uh so you are saying that atoms always ex existed.
Matter is an emergent property from energy. Energy the first law of thermodynamics cannot be created. So would you like to prove that God created it from magical nothingness?
>> Yeah, >> go for it. Because you'd be breaking the first law of thermodynamics.
>> You're going to get a Nobel Prize.
No, this law only can be defined by you know human beings but we do not know because we have very little knowledge about it and we cannot have >> we do know thanks to the second law of thermodynamics the law of conservation of energy.
>> You keep on you act like science is created. It's not. We are describing from observation and testing the universe. The universe we did not create. We are observing the facts of the universe and the fact of the universe is energy cannot be created. We did not make that up. It is not a magical thing that we just shout out our asses and said is true. We have observed it. We have tested it and it is true. If you want to prove that a god created it, go for it.
>> Okay. So what is the difference between consciousness and non conscious? I mean non-conciousness.
>> Conscious.
>> Nonsciousness.
>> Yeah. What is cons? I mean, what is consciousness to you?
>> Check this out. Spoken. I don't have to know anything. You still have to prove it. I don't know anything about consciousness. Prove God did it. I don't know anything about the universe. Prove God did it. I don't know anything about biology. Prove God did it. I don't know anything about anything. Prove God did it. You're the one with the magical claim. You're the one that has to prove it.
>> Okay. So, uh uh don't you believe that it has a designer?
>> Nope. like someone >> because you still have not proven that a god created anything.
>> Okay. So why is why is your life on >> again? I don't know prove God did it.
You're the one with the burden to prove your magical claim about a fairy creating things. You have to prove it. I don't have to answer everything about everything about everything about everything. You're the one claiming to have the answer. Prove it.
>> So don't you think that you could be wrong? Because I genuinely >> I could be. So prove that I'm wrong by proving your god did it. You're really failing at burden shifting.
>> Okay. So you are 50/50.
>> No, but you're the one with the claim that a magical unicorn did it. So you have to prove it.
>> No. No. You said you said >> you're the one with the burden to prove that a unicorn created things. So prove it.
>> Because we cannot see how it happened because we were dear.
>> Boohoo. That doesn't mean a magical unicorn or Bigfoot made it. You need to prove that it was created by a unicorn.
Just because we don't know something does not mean that you can fill in that gap of knowledge with magical unicorn claims.
>> But but science does not uh I mean it does not say that uh there uh or science has boohoo. So proof god did it nothing to do with that.
>> Wonderful. So proof god did it. Science science is just an observational study and >> correct. So proof god did it. You're burden shifting is failing that kind of you know >> you're not going to get the answers you want from me. You are the one with the claim. I don't have to prove anything to you. All I have to do is sit here listen to you and say whether I grant what you say or not. You are the one with the claim. You are the one that has a burden to prove it. So stop asking me questions and provide the evidence.
But but as I said on >> nope, you're not going to burn and shift again. What you're going to do is provide me the evidence for your claim.
>> You have a claim that a magical unicorn created all things. Prove it. Why should I believe that?
>> We should believe uh because uh it is not by accident.
>> Says you prove it.
You're only making claims. You have to prove the claim to say it's true or not >> because God is omnipotent.
>> Prove it.
>> We cannot I mean we just can uh you know understand biologic and rationality. But >> so prove God made biology.
>> If you really ask me that show me God where is God then it is uh not above us to you know because God has told us that you cannot see me.
>> No he hasn't he hasn't said anything to you. You read a book written by human beings. No, it is not written by human beings.
>> Oh, really? What God created the book and how do you know that?
>> Uh, I mean uh it has not it since it came on I mean since it came on the earth uh it it it hasn't been changed.
>> The Bible?
>> No, no, no. I mean I'm talking about the Quran.
>> Which religious book do you follow?
>> Uh the Muslim one.
>> Okay. I mean uh >> the Quran was written by humans.
>> No, >> Muhammad wrote it.
>> How how can you say that?
>> Stalometry. Muhammad wrote it.
>> Can you can you show me a single proof where it says that it is written by Muhammad?
>> Yeah. Stalometry.
>> Can you prove to me it was written by God? Can you show me a single proof it was written by a god?
>> Yeah. God has revealed.
>> Prove it.
Do you see how this works yet? You're making claims. You have the burden to prove it. I don't have to prove [ __ ] >> U so you are you are saying that you have to prove that how >> no you have to prove your claim that a magical unicorn did anything. Yeah, I believe. I believe.
>> Um, why?
>> Because because it makes sense to me.
And if you >> Okay, so explain how you know it's true.
This is called epistemology.
>> Wait. The the way I see the universe and everything around me or I I believe that all of the things which we see in somehow it has been designed.
>> Why should I believe that?
Okay. So, uh according to you, what is intelligence?
>> I don't know. Can you prove to me God has anything to do with it?
>> What is intelligence?
>> I don't know. Can you prove God has anything to do with it?
>> You know the meaning of intelligence.
>> You have the burden to prove here, bud.
Not me. I didn't bring up intelligence.
You did. Your claim is God created it.
Prove it.
It's quite simple. I don't have to know anything. You're the one that supposedly knows. You're the one that has to explain and prove.
It's quite simple.
>> Okay. So, can animal with So, you are saying that uh everything that >> I haven't said anything. I'm saying you need to prove your burden.
>> Stop shifting. You keep on going like you know that there's no evidence for your God. So, you keep on shifting over to biology. Then you shift over to neurology. Then you shift over to the Quran. Then you stop stop moving the goalposts and just provide the evidence that your god did anything.
>> I mean without him uh we cannot even think of it.
>> That's a claim. Prove it.
>> Do you not see how this works yet?
You're claiming that a god exists and then you're claiming that if a god did not exist, we wouldn't exist. You're claiming these things. You need to demonstrate how you know it to be true.
Okay. So, God also says that whether you believe >> No, God does not. A book says it.
Incorrect. A book says it.
>> We like we have free will. Whether you believe >> that's what the book says. You don't know that. A book says it. This book says that. Congratulations. That doesn't make it true just because a book wrote it. Do you believe in witchcraft or tarot? Cuz this book talks about that as well. Do you believe in that? Or do you believe in do you do you believe in Jesus Christ as the Messiah? Because this book says that. Do I don't give a [ __ ] what the book says. I care about the evidence justifying the claims in the book.
>> You Okay. So, one thing here is to notice that you said earlier that >> Nope. You're not going to shift again.
You are not changing the topic. Stop.
Stop. You are changing the topic again.
Every single time I put you in a corner, you run to another topic. You have a claim that God exists and created things. You need to prove that.
Uh >> I think uh do you know there is a concept of >> this is another [ __ ] topic change.
No, you have to prove that God created things.
>> Did God create the universe? Let's start there. I'll help you out here.
>> Yeah, absolutely.
>> Wonderful. prove that >> we we haven't seen the process.
>> We haven't seen the process that was happening there because once universe uh begin you know once uh uh because that universe begin to form by the will of correct and then >> nope that's a claim you have to prove it.
>> Okay. So there is a concept of similarity in the book as well.
>> Mhm. Yeah, it's demonstrated through the observational evidence of CNB radiation.
Where's your evidence for God?
>> No, no. How I mean it is just something that you are saying by your you know mouth because at that time there was nothing like instruments and anything scientific.
>> So energy cannot be created. The universe existed in a hot dense state.
13 billion years ago it expanded. Can you prove there was a time when the universe did not exist and then prove God exists and then prove God created the universe?
>> So you are talking about thermodynamics.
What I am doing is keeping you on track because you're incapable of paying attention. You are the one with the burden to prove that a god exists and created anything. Stop trying to shift the burden of proof. It's pathetically embarrassing. Prove your burden.
>> So can we question Nope. That's not you providing evidence. That's you asking another [ __ ] question.
>> You don't have to question. Let me ask you something.
>> Do Do I need to ask you a question to prove this exists?
>> Or can I show it to you? Here's the evidence that it exists. You can observe it. I can show you what it is. I can demonstrate how it works. I don't have to ask you questions. Do I need to ask you questions to prove that my phone exists? No. I can show you the evidence, which is my phone [ __ ] existing. I can show you who made it, which warehouse it came from, which engineers created it, and the inventors. I don't need to ask you questions to prove something. You do not need to ask questions to prove something. You need to provide the evidence that your something is true.
So, I'm going to ask you one more time and then we're going to move on to someone with brain cells. Since you just keep running in circles, I need you to prove that God exists and created the universe or get off of my panel.
>> Oh, I mean I can say one thing is that we cannot just you know see the >> That's not what I asked you. I asked you to prove that God created the universe.
All right, we'll move on.
Brian, let's get you in here.
>> What's up, Brian?
>> Hey, you're a Gnostic. You're not an atheist.
>> Atheist means belief or lack of belief, cuz theism means belief in God or gods.
A means lack of or without. When you put A in front of a word, it becomes lack or without English.
>> So I'm an atheist. The etmology is still the same. The etmology of the origin is still the exact same.
>> Oh, you're pagans.
>> So agnostic agnosticism is about knowledge.
>> Anglosaxon. You're not smart enough to understand religion. You belong in a cave. The Romans should have eradicated all of you.
>> Why do you think slavery happened? Who did it? Protestant whites like you.
because you're a you're barbarian.
You're unintelligent. You're too stupid for religion. We should have killed all of you. Do you understand what I'm saying? You're not an atheist. You're a pagan. The words you're using.
>> So, anyways, as I was saying, >> you're [ __ ] >> Yeah. So, as I was saying, >> quite [ __ ] >> As I was saying, is about knowledge.
When you are gnostic, you know something. If you're agnostic, you put the a in front of it. You lack that knowledge. So, some people are agnostic theist ornostic theist. Some people are agnostic atheist ornostic atheist. I am a gnostic atheist.
That was rough.
Um, books are free at your nearest library. Go open one, please, for the love of society.
Yeah, that was interesting.
I'm definitely a Christian with the amount of racism and hatred.
Do atheists love unborn babies? If yes, why support abortion?
Define baby.
Cuz when people get abortions, they're not killing babies. They're getting rid of a parasitic clump of cells that is connected to their body.
And the people that decide to keep this parasite, that parasite eventually evolves into a person.
Biology books are free at libraries as well. Just throwing that out there.
You will know them by their slurs.
That's funny. Oh [ __ ] Paul exists.
Yeah, they're also female in URL. We all start out female.
What do you think about feminism? I think if it weren't for women, we wouldn't exist.
Women are superior in basically every single way.
Yeah, right. No, it's that's like fact.
They have better pain tolerance. They have better emotional regulation. They live longer. They are more intellectual, especially early on. Their brains develop quicker. Like literally in every single way. You know what men have sometimes? Well, our brains are flooded with this thing called testosterone.
It's a chemical and it literally breaks our brain. When it floods our brain, it literally breaks it breaks the connection of emotional and logical um and that tends to allow bone density usually. Not all the time and also muscle mass usually. Not all the time.
There are many women that could kick my absolute [ __ ] ass. And I'm a 6'4, 200lb dude.
And I could get my ass kicked by many women because you're soft. Cool. Come prove it.
I'm so scared of you. What do you think about the minimal facts argument? Don't know.
because they live longer because they don't randomly go hold my beer and go do the most random, insane, and potentially life-threatening [ __ ] Yeah, their brains work. Ours don't.
Did Bro get clapped by Pensive? No.
Pensive is pathetic. He's incapable of providing any epistemic justification for arguments and thinks logic alone proves everything.
It's sad. He tried but he failed miserably.
Pensive got bent over and got rhetorical back shots over and over. It was fun.
couldn't clap if he was a trained seal.
That's funny. All right, we're going to open up the YouTube lines and give me one moment.
YouTube lines are open.
Can YouTube still not hear Tik Tok? No, I have no clue how to do that.
Um, maybe that would work if I It's connected to the correct mic. Yeah, I don't know how.
I'll have to talk to John about that. I know John does it.
I would love for you to prove God. Logic doesn't prove God. There's no such thing as a logically sound argument for God because there's no epistemic justification to grant any of the arguments because there's no evidence for God doing anything, let alone existing in. It's impossible for this God to exist outside of time and have causal relations. Therefore, it's not true. But I would love for you to I don't know why you're arguing against me.
You should stop laring as a dumbass and start accepting facts.
You're wrong, broto. Prove it.
And I don't give a [ __ ] about your feelings or opinions.
Yeah, I'm so scared of you. Thanks for the engagement in chat.
No, we do grant modal logic, but it has to adhere to reality.
It's possible in some possible world that I wore a red shirt today.
Therefore, it's true that I could have because in reality, it's actually a possibility.
There is no possible world where there's a God, though. You have to epistemically justify that God exists.
Logic doesn't do that.
All of you Philip bros, you do know that you still have to have epistemology, right? Like you don't get to just throw it away.
Incorrect, broto. Keep crying. Thanks for the engagement, loser.
I have not. But I [ __ ] hate the patriarchy.
I did not, broto. Thanks for the engagement, loser.
Um, I don't know if I have. It sounds kind of familiar. Out Louder, bros.
Not what I said, Broto. Keep crying.
Thanks for the engagement, loser.
I have debated Darth Dawkins.
He kicked me pretty [ __ ] fast.
Well, we love you, Echan.
Yeah, it's cuz I never said it, bro.
Thanks for the engagement really. We have absolutely no one willing to request up. That's sad.
There's absolutely no evidence for God.
There's no reason why we should believe in gods.
It's very obvious now. Thanks for the concession.
Um cake, also there's nothing wrong with having beliefs and practices that aren't necessarily real.
I practice many things that are considered supernatural to many people and I do it for the experience alone.
Sometimes I know the causal mechanism and sometimes I don't. But in a debate platform when we're talking about truth, I'm going to hold people accountable to truth. And if they're saying something is true, they have to prove it. Now, if I'm out with someone having a cup of coffee or a beer or something or whatever, I'm not going to hold them accountable that hard. You believe in your God because of that? That's awesome, man. I love that for you. We're in a debate that's actually being shown to thousands of people and what we say could mold the way they think. We're going to stick to absolute facts or at least the closest we can.
I don't know where my cat went.
I do need another cup of coffee.
Does everyone have their coffee with them?
YouTube. Usually you guys have cups of coffee.
Just got my coffee.
Hell yeah.
Black coffee. Oh man, that's bold. The only like mixed drink like that that I'll drink black is or black is going to be tea. I don't like that with any sweetener or nothing. But coffee absolutely needs sweetener.
>> Yeah, God's real. The premise is going to be because I said so. substantiate P1.
Go ahead.
>> This guy in the the error 404, you're like arguing Cody's agnostic view as you're not agnostic, atheist view as you're a as an atheist.
>> Yeah. And the other dude is mad at he said something about um >> the other dude's atheist, too.
>> Yeah. He doesn't like my logic.
He said something about a type of logic that I was ignorant on the other day and I was like yeah I don't know anything about that so I'm not going to grant it and he's like oh you think it's wrong and I'm like no I said I don't know anything about it so I'm not going to grant it because I'm ignorant. He's like wow I can't believe you said it's wrong.
That's so stupid.
>> Oh I mean you can epistemically grant something without knowing it to be true.
Especially if they can't justify it.
>> Here's the Broto guy. Oh boy.
I don't think you don't think math is subjective, do you?
>> Hey, what's up?
>> Oh, yeah. You do think math is subjective. That's why we kicked your dumb ass.
>> No, I said there are anti-realist positions to math and logic and morality.
>> Do I give a [ __ ] about that?
>> But but what do you hold to?
>> I'm agnostic to the math part, but I'm definitely an anti-realist when it comes to uh morality and uh logic.
>> I don't care.
I was just letting you know because you were saying logic had to be grounded in objective axioms for it to be true and like logic >> I said I incorrect false >> false what I said is I grant axioms that are self-evident otherwise I don't have a justification to grant them >> right well that's what an axiom is just a >> correct it's an objective truth >> self-evident is objective >> no >> yes >> that's not true Yes, it is the evidence of itself without a mind. Yes, >> that doesn't make it objective.
>> Yes, it does.
>> No, it's just something you take.
>> Define objective.
>> I suppose I should have asked you what you mean by objective.
>> Mind independent.
>> Or does so you have mind independent or you also have the actual dictionary definition does not change with feelings, tastes, and opinions. A self-evident axiom is not going to change based on feelings and opinions.
>> So it's therefore subject objective.
>> It's something you just take to be true that you don't like argue for.
>> Nope. It is self-evident because it is the evidence of itself. Things exist.
>> Do you believe that like uh like let's say the universe is like a brute fact for the sake of argument? Do you believe that's like an objective truth?
>> Well, what do you mean brute fact? What do you mean the universe is a brute fact? Like the universe isn't a proposition. How could it be a fact?
>> I'm saying let's say for the sake of argument that the universe is a brute fact. It just always was, always will, eternal in a sense.
>> Yeah, you just like restated what you said first. I don't know.
>> It's a hypothetical question. Like I'm not going >> That's like saying, do you think rock >> just asking if that would be objective?
Dude, >> we can use rock if you want. It doesn't matter. I'm using literally anything.
Rock isn't. You realize propositions are truth act like nouns aren't. To say is rock an objective fact like that's silly to say.
>> I can't ask a question.
>> I'm confused.
>> Jordan Peterson. Listen listen listen.
Jordan Peterson, can you listen? Jordan Peterson, are you able to answer the question without questioning every semantic?
Cuz if not, you're as pathetic as the theists.
>> No, I can answer a question. But >> then answer the [ __ ] question.
>> Yeah. Like >> what's the question? What's the question?
>> Let's say like is the universe like like let's say for the sake of argument is if it's a brute fact, right? It's just true, just always was, always will for the sake of argument, right? Would it be an objective truth?
that that you really >> It's a simple question. It's a simple question.
>> Holy [ __ ] >> Okay. Can I give you an example before?
>> No, he just gave you an example and you're incapable of comprehending the [ __ ] simple ass yes or no question.
>> Okay. To say is the universe real. Is that a fact? That's a proposition.
That's a question. That's >> he was asking me is the universe.
>> Are you incapable of following along with context? He's saying if the universe is a brute fact of its existence, dumbass, would that be considered an objective truth? That's what he said. You >> Oh, now that's saying something.
>> Oh, now you're tracking. Okay. Slow tier.
>> Is that Yes or no? An objective. Yeah, slow tier. It's a mix of slow boy and low tier. Yeah.
>> I I accidentally said it like a couple of weeks ago and I was like, I'm just going to keep it.
>> The second one was >> both of them were. You're just a Jordan Peterson fan girl.
>> I'm not going to lie. I hate Jordan Peterson. He's annoying as [ __ ] >> Then stop talking like him >> because you're annoying as [ __ ] by questioning every [ __ ] word he's asked you.
>> You got to understand like I asked a question, right? Just a conversation and you're like you're like literally like questioning everything I ask, right?
Just answer a question.
>> Dude, just let me give you an example.
Just let me please give you an example.
>> Can you answer it at least before you do that?
>> I I it's a nonquest. That's why I'm giving you an example. I want clarity.
I'm not trying to be difficult. If I came up here and said, "Is car true?"
Yes. Would you be able to answer that?
>> Cars are objective.
>> Yeah. If you use a hypothetical saying, is a car fact?
>> That's based in the context of him asking you if the universe existed as a proof fact, would it be objective? The literal word for word questioning he [ __ ] asked you for a yes or no simple ass [ __ ] layman question. If I am using that same context for your question with not a lot of words in it for the context but I have previous context of talking about brute facts and objectiveness for ontological existence my answer would be yes because I have a brain that can track and then if I am wrong or if I am mistaken it was a question I'm sorry you're not able to keep up and if I am wrong after that you can then elaborate oh I don't think you understood what I meant.
Yeah, because to say is the universe true?
>> Literally just a fill, bro. Go [ __ ] yourself, dude.
>> Bro, my point is that we can replace universe with your go ahead. It's not worth it. But >> tell us, how you doing, man?
>> I'm good. Um, do you take it to be the case? That's a trinity.
>> Jesus Christ. A, are you over the age of 18?
>> Um, yes, I'm 19.
>> B, which god do you believe in?
>> Um, >> this is to questions. It is part of the topic. You will not escape it.
>> I'm a trinitarian. Um, okay. So, do you just take it to be the case that the trinity is illogical?
>> Mhm.
>> Um, what's going to be the argument for that?
>> Yeah. How can three be one?
>> I mean, there's no logical contradiction with three persons and one essence unless you could display it.
>> So, you don't think there's a logical contradiction in a married bachelor?
>> In a married bachelor. Well, yeah, >> cuz the definition of three is going to be three things. And then the definition of one is going to be one singular thing. And then to say that one is three is by definition a contradiction because it can't be both one and three at the same time. Go ahead.
>> Wait.
>> Go ahead. Oh, you're not able to track.
You're not able to track tracking error.
I'm sorry. Low tier. Low tier. Is that a concession? Is that a concession? Thank you. Thank you for the concession. Thank you for the concession.
>> I'm being bad faith. You're a Phil, bro.
Your existence is bad faith.
>> Berto. I don't know why you're still I don't know why you're so confused. I can replace universe with literally anything.
Grass is a brute fact. Always was, always will. Does that make it an objective truth under that hypothetical?
I don't understand why that's I don't know.
I think that was the quickest I've ever shut down a Phil bro before. I'm proud of myself.
>> You like kind of you kind of pulled a Darth Dawkins there. Absolutely. I'm proud of myself.
>> No, I'm saying if grass isn't brute fact. If if if conditional >> contraorcting.
That's petty.
That's so petty. I love it. Do it again.
That was mean.
It does alter our life, Ginger.
I mean, if you're too scared to request up and prove it, go for it. I'm asking you why I should believe in gods. If you don't think I should, then [ __ ] off.
This isn't for you. It's quite simple.
I need to figure out how to get you guys on the YouTube call.
>> Apparently like Tik Tok studio something.
>> Well, I'm on studio but I use YouTube through OBS.
>> I can't use grass as a proposition.
>> Jesus.
>> If I say if the conditional if a is true, then wouldn't it be an objective fact or an objective truth?
You're 1,00% a Phil bro. Tell us. And I just absolutely destroyed you. You got rhetorical back shots in the corner.
You're a low tier slow boy. And it you got rhetorical back shots. You You conceded so hard for the next 10 generations. You will now be known as the loser filibro. You got clapped so hard.
>> To be fair, you joined up and like when you was asking normal questions like how old are you, you were like well stay on topic.
>> Yeah, stay on topic, please. Sorry. You can't keep up. You can't track. Can't track. Track and error. Track and error.
That's going to be a category error.
Like you're such a fil loer. It's pathetic. Go open up a book. Go outside.
Touch grass. Grass is purple if you didn't know that.
You know who I remind myself of if they were younger? Me. In the future. It's crazy. I know.
Angry and sad. No, definitely not.
Angry. Yeah, I definitely get a lot of anger towards stupidity and idiots grass is purple a proof fact obviously.
>> I mean I can form it as a conditional and like if it obviously like I wouldn't be able to prove that because it's a hypothetical, right?
>> I love that no one can tell that I'm sarcastic.
Then you should take a look in the mirror. Why? So I can mo myself instead of you. Are you just jealous?
Keep crying, Phil. Bro, is that a Kiki fanboy?
Go get your food, Contra.
What is there to be jealous of? Um, not being a Phil bro loser like you.
Bro, I'll just I'll just grant whatever you're saying, bro. Like, maybe I don't know enough about philosophy. I'll just say you're you're right and I'm wrong. I don't really know what to say to this anymore.
It's probably me being clueless on something.
I'll send you some photos, Contra.
>> Thanks for the concession. Yeah, I'm not a Phil, bro. Right.
When I was being nice and ending the conversation, I conceded. Sure.
>> You being a coward in chat is such a concession of you being unintelligent.
K. Phil bro, loser. Phil, bro, loser.
Phil bros get the L's. Phil bros get the L's. You are pathetic. You are a loser.
No one likes you.
>> What's up, Gambit? How you doing, man?
one of my favorite Marvel characters.
>> Dude, that's exactly what I was just thinking.
>> You said give him that.
>> Mhm.
>> You're fine, Gambit.
The amount of reports that I get when Phil Bros join and I call them out for being Phil Bros is hilarious.
>> Oh, that's a red herring straw house.
>> How you doing, Gambit? You're over the age of 18.
>> Yo, what's up, dude? I'm I'm a Catholic, so I am a believer in a god.
>> Cool.
>> In three persons, right? Um I did come from a background of bapt I'm just gonna give an overview kind of like a personal thing. Um I did come from a background from like evangelical kind of like reformed Baptist like very theological.
>> It it was tough. Yeah. I was adopted. I was a brown child in >> and in a very evangelical Christian homeschooled house. I'm surprised I made it out.
>> Yeah. Valid. So is that side of Christianity can get overbearing especially when they're like Trump never but yeah >> oh god yeah >> um so then I did kind of you know distance myself from Christ >> holy [ __ ] >> he's taking >> I was listening to Cody call somebody a good boy bad habits >> oh there's the kitty all All right.
Yeah, go for it, brother. Sorry to cut you off.
>> Yeah. So, so, um, I did kind of end up going into like a deistnostic point of view on, you know, God in the Christian faith just because of all the archaeological evidence. And, um, I don't know, man. It's like it's I would say it's almost impossible to physically, you know, try to convert someone into believing into a god, right?
>> It just has to be something they have to do on their own, >> right? Um and faith to many people is illogical, >> right? It's just if you feel it, you feel it. If >> Yeah. If you feel it, you feel it. If you don't, you don't. Right. And that's just kind of my viewpoint. You know, coming from that background. I still struggle. You know, a good Catholic um uh you know, church doctor as they call them that in the faith.
>> Let me was uh Augustine of Hippo and he had his own writings called Confessions.
Let me ask you something about feelings.
>> Yeah. What's up?
>> Are feelings a consistently accurate dictator of truth?
>> No, of course not.
>> So, if I'm in a church and I get goosebumps and I feel energetic all of a sudden, is that evidence of a god? Or could it also be evidence of something natural like them turning on the air?
>> It could.
>> Right? So that's why we are skeptic because there's no evidence for a causal mechanism for a god and our goosebumps.
There's no causal mechanism for God in the universe etc. >> And I think a lot of the best way I described it is or that I heard it described is by a uh bishop out of Rochester, Minnesota. His name is Robert Baron. He's he actually goes on a lot of podcasts like Tucker Carlson and stuff like that or on mainstream podcasts and talks about the Catholic faith. The way he described it is like Tolken, right?
Or it's like you're not gonna find Tolken in Lord of the Rings, right? No matter how much you search, no match you search The Hobbit, you're not going to find the word Tolken >> unless it's on the cover because >> he's outside of that creation, right?
>> Yeah. Here's the problem with that.
>> And I think >> there is evidence that it would not exist without Tolken. There is not evidence that we would not exist without God. See, this is a category error.
You're comparing reality to a fictional madeup thing, >> right? But some people believe it's a physical thing. I mean, >> but for that there would be empirical proof.
>> How do you prove God created the universe?
>> Yeah, we do. It's called CMB radiation.
You can observe it to this day. We are currently in the big bang. The big bang is just quite simply the hot dense state expanding.
>> We can observe it.
>> Radiation is a direct reflection from expanded gas.
>> Wait, I'm sorry.
>> Well, you said it's expanding, right?
Yeah. And that kind of material would be a gas. Correct.
>> And dark energy.
>> Gas is we're there. Yeah. Yeah. But it the leading expansion causes dark energy.
>> And how do we know that? How do we physically >> by observing it? Yes.
>> Yeah. You can look out you can look out into the like space and you literally see in the past because of how like >> but where did the materials come into being?
>> Matter is an emergent property of energy. Energy can't be created.
Therefore, it's always existed.
>> So, you're saying it's always existed and there is no point >> as the law of physics.
>> Yeah. The first law >> of thermodynamics. Yeah. That energy cannot be created. So, this is my argument and it's not sound dependent on um which model you look at for the universe and expansion etc. But the first law of thermodynamics just grounded in the first law of thermodynamics with nothing extra.
Energy can't be created. Energy exists.
Therefore, it's always existed because if it exists and it cannot be created, it can't be created and it does exist.
So, it could not have been created but does exist. So, it's always existed, right?
>> It's it's just one of those things, >> right? So, energy can't be created. The hotend state was that of energy.
>> You would have to full-fledged believe that energy cannot be created and exist conservation of energy, brother.
>> It technically can't.
>> You can't prove that it's always been there, right?
>> If it can't be created and it does exist, that is the proof that it's always been there because it can't be created. But that's the thing is is that you don't know if it can't be created >> in a local system. I know for a fact it can't be >> right. That that's what I'm saying. But there's more than just this local system.
>> Nope.
That that's that's an idea. It's a probability. It is plausible that there's something external. The reason we say that it it uh the law of conservation doesn't hold to global is because as it expands, we see energy coming in and out. Well, not even going coming in, just that it red shifts and quote unquote disappears.
>> I don't think we're ever going to hit an agreement here, but there was a thought that popped in my head. I'm not sure if you're like a nerd by any chance, like Warhammer 40k.
>> Not enough.
>> What about it?
>> Yeah. So, we're not we're not going to ever agree on this argument, so we're just going to move on. Uh but Warhammer 40k that the whole idea is that whatever is going on in that universe, there's an entire surrounding army of the entire galaxy coming in to kill them.
>> Yeah, but that's a video game.
>> For some reason that popped into my head for theory.
>> So like it is possible that there's an external universe. It is also plausible >> knows it. He knows it.
>> So it's plausible that there's other bubble universes, but there's no actual demonstration of it. So just because something was mathematically and physically plausible does not equate to it being true. That's why logic in and of itself doesn't prove anything because you still have to demonstrate that it actually is true in reality.
>> Yeah.
>> Do you think it's fair to say like we look back 13.8 billion years into the past, right? And we can see energy wasn't created or destroyed in that local bubble. You think it's fair to say that it can't necessarily be created or destroyed if we all we do is witness it not being created and destroyed?
>> As much as I have been through like that ration, like I said, in my mind, I don't know what it is. Maybe it's the psyche that I grew up with, right? But I just can't break my thought of Christ, right? I I feel too much comfort in that.
>> Okay, we can we can move to that. Why do you believe in Jesus Christ?
Sober, you're not a mythicist, right?
>> Feeling, >> right? Me? A myth?
>> No, I'm asking sober. Sober. You're not a mythicist. Correct.
>> No, I can grant that Jesus was a real individual.
>> Cool. Cool. Cool. All right. We've got two arguments we could have here. I don't even believe that he existed. We could talk about his existence and why we should or should not believe in that.
Or we can talk about whether he was or was not divine.
I don't think physically like in any you know external evidence outside of the Bible because you know it'd be circular reasoning to internally right um externally you can't prove there's divinity you can only you know believe and I think that's >> that's not logical though is it >> it's not but I think >> so you agree that your belief is illogical You said logic itself can't stay true to a certain point.
>> I mean, why don't why don't we like >> not per se?
>> You can get you can get that same amount of like comfort in different religions.
>> You can get that same amount of comfort in different religions that like probably hold more true.
>> Yeah. Hinduism being one.
>> Um I mean >> Yeah. Like Hinduism is based on karma, right? It's literally like you be nice to everyone, you will pretty much upgrade like a video game, >> which is epistmically justified through psychology.
>> But there there is a lot of mysticism not only in Hinduism, but there's also mysticism in Christianity. A lot of >> church believe, but I I don't even believe anything supernatural at all.
>> Right? Even even in even in Jewish you know history you have kabala which is a form of Jewish mysticism and then you know you have mysticism in Christianity like the Eastern Orthodox where like the whole idea is the mysticism unlike the Catholic Church which I believe which is more kind of like dogma and doctrine you know I mean >> oh yeah like for me like even if I grant how like Jesus is God there's so many like internal critiques right there's so many things that like we wouldn't see if this is if his attributes hold True.
>> I will believe to a certain point because I do have a skeptic's mind and like >> in the Catholic Church a skeptic's mind isn't necessarily No, I still believe in Christ.
>> What if I show you a contradiction in Christ's um personhood characteristic?
>> Personhood.
>> Yeah. Is is Jesus the bringer of peace?
>> Bringer of peace.
I mean, is there a direct quotation?
Like I said, I'm not a theologian by any means. Like I said, I was a skeptic for a good portion of my >> Is Jesus a good person?
>> Young adulthood. Is Jesus a good person?
Well, considering that he is fully God and fully man, you would be omnipotent, omnipresent, you would be perfect.
>> That doesn't follow to good.
>> Why?
>> Just because you're all powerful and all knowing does not mean you're all good.
Well, let me get the church's viewpoint on this. Like the the the Catholic dogma on this really quick because I don't want to butcher.
>> Well, disrespect.
>> There's many different type of attributes that people put to go.
There's like 18,000 gods, right? It's like people you can put attributes on these that can include I don't know timeless uh changeless you know all good all you know and some people hold to an like an evil god in a sense where like okay so I'm getting this directly from like the Vatican and the teachings of you know all the popes and such and those speaking from the book uh the church teaches that Jesus has two natures divine and human uh united in one person called hippoatic union. Um since God is perfect and without sin, Jesus is also without sin.
The Bible verse most often cited is Hebrews 4:15, which says Christ was tempted in all points like as we were or we are yet without sin. The Catholic also the Catholic Church also teaches that Jesus human will will always in perfect harmony with the father's will.
He experienced hunger, pain, sorrow, temptation, and suffering as a true human being. But he never chose evil.
His perfection is not viewed as fake humanity, but as humility lived exactly as God intended humanity.
>> Okay, >> I have a question here cuz we could show you a contradiction in triom omni properties. And I know that you would still grant it just because of the quote unquote feeling.
>> I don't think we're actually going to get anywhere with this conversation because you are 100% made up regardless of logic.
And that's and that's fine. You know, it's some people's view on my, you know, as long as I live peacefully.
>> So, I have nothing and I want sober to talk as well. But I have nothing against having a belief be based on the experience and feelings you get from it.
What I do have a problem with is when we claim this belief to be true because of something. And that is where we have to prove it and have a burden of proof.
>> Right. There there there's just there's not definite archaeological evidence of any of this, right? But there is damn near close. Like you have towns in Egypt that have references to Levventine, you know, culture that still have archaeological like burials.
>> Yeah. We have we have historical evidence for the Hindu Krishna >> town in Egypt, >> right? And that's and that's what I'm saying is it is that the story I don't know it's >> and Jesus is stolen from other myths including Dianicis and Horus.
>> Well I mean you do have some Roman archaeology and Roman graffiti that does reference a specific Roman praising his his lord.
>> Well I mean there's a there's a lot.
Yahweh is literally a storm god of the Canaanite pantheon.
>> Like literally actually no he's not. So he was later introduced talking about so the storm god of the Canaanite pantheon is actually Bal.
>> Incorrect.
>> He's one of them.
>> Incorrect. You have L, you have Yahweh, you have Ball, you have all these other gods, >> father god of the >> right. And Yahweh is the storm.
>> Yes. Bal was a storm deity in the Canaanite.
>> There's multiple different Yahweh is one of them.
>> About the if you're talking about the Ugaritic, >> right? See how there's different interpretations of that even. So, we know that Yahweh existed before in a pantheon.
>> The only reference to the Canaanite pantheon we have is the Ugaritic text.
>> Here's my point. Did he exist previously in a pantheon? Yes or no?
>> No, he didn't. He was later introduced when Israelites were already established in the in the Levant.
That's what I'm saying is that these could have been a different interpretation of the same God and the ball bal didn't win out. Right.
>> You're a Gambit. I have a question for you, brother.
>> That's what the Bible says. It says there are false gods.
>> All right, give it um if like if your belief isn't based on like logical soundness, right? Or I don't know what makes the most sense on historical evidence. You know what I mean? There's I think there's other things that you can base your belief on >> historical evidence.
>> I mean, if you cross-examine it with other like you look at the Moabitete Stale where it talks about Yahweh is that's the first mention of Yahweh. I mean there's stories like Odyssey >> like the Odyssey has like real life places that are true. So does Spider-Man. The Odyssey itself is self-described fiction isn't it?
>> Not in its time. Not in it time.
Not time >> dude. Everyone believed in the Greek gods just as much as you believe in yours.
>> Right. But that waned, right?
>> Now it's a mythology. Christ is young, dude. It's a young mythology. It's not considered mythology yet because it's young, >> dude.
>> My brother, >> it's not old. It is one of the youngest religions in existence.
>> I mean, >> the more science continues to grow.
>> I would say Islam is and that has a substantial amount of followers.
>> It's younger. Yeah. And I they're [ __ ] false as well. And you even agree that they're a mythology.
Like the only reason yours is not a mythology to you is because you're 100% cognitive bias towards it.
>> Okay. But I also pointed out that like you can you substantially prove that Yahweh was a Canaanite deity.
>> Yeah. You I mean you're completely false in everything you were saying about it.
>> But yeah, what evidence do you have that >> historical text?
>> But what historical text? Cuz I named one.
>> Do you want me to explain about everything about everything about everything?
>> Really?
>> Yes. cuz I provided.
>> So you're not going to explain everything about everything about >> I say what the Ugaritic text was. Your only information on the Canaanite pantheon through and through is the Ugaritic text which is the southern Syrian tablet found in the ancient city of Ugarit.
>> Right? Which means he existed in a pantheon way before Jesus.
>> He's in the first mention of Yahweh was before the Bible on the Moabitete stale which is 9th century BC. Right. Before before the Old Testament, right before the Old Testament so as I said as I originally said is Yahweh existed before the Yahweh of the Bible as a Canaanite pantheon god Moabites. The reference of Yahweh was to your listen this is a yes or no. Was Yahweh a god of a pantheon?
>> Yes or no?
>> It is a yes or no question that I'm about to provide. A false dichotomy would mean that there's more than yes or no. It's either no, he was not, or yes, he was. There is no in between there. So this is the question. This is the question. There is no nuance for this.
Did Yahweh exist before the Hebrew testament in the Canonite pantheon?
>> Reference to Israel.
>> So he existed before the Hebrew gods, >> the reference to the nation >> in the Canaanite pantheon.
>> There you go.
>> Reference of Israel, the daylight.
>> So now you now you agree finally that Yahweh is stolen from a Canaanite pantheon. Dude, I told you that it was referenced to the state of is to the or the like the >> Do I seem like I give a [ __ ] about that?
>> No.
>> Do I seem like I give a flying [ __ ] about that?
>> You're academia, but you don't know Leavant history.
>> Incorrect. You even agree with me 100% entirely.
>> What does the Moabites stay like?
>> I don't care. What I do care about is the fact that Yahweh is a Canaanite pantheon god. Correct or false?
>> There's no evidence of it.
So now you're backtracking again.
>> There's no evidence of something. You don't believe in it?
>> There is no evidence. The only storm deity in the Canaanite text, which is the Ugaritic, >> Yahweh was an ancient Seemetic deity who became the national god of the Israelites and Juda. Don't care. He is often >> it's a it's a language.
>> Dude, I don't care. All I care is was he part of the Canaanite pantheon? And the answer is yes.
>> Before the Hebrew testic god, not >> I don't care. No, dude. You didn't listen at all. Canaanites are shut up.
>> You don't know Leavant history.
>> You don't know [ __ ] Yahweh was an ancient >> cooking you right now.
>> Yahweh was an ancient Seemetic deity who became the national god of the Israelites in Judah. He is often viewed as distinct.
Distinct. Oh man, it looks like I actually am wrong. While some scholars suggest that Yahweh may have originated from Canaanite worship, the biblical texts affirm that he is the sole creator or deity. Holy [ __ ] I'm wrong.
Oh, there's no consensus.
Okay, so it's split.
No, but it still existed as in the Canaanite pantheon. In the oldest biblical text, Yahweh possesses attributes that were typically ascribed to deities of weather and war, rectifying the land of Israel, and leading a heavenly army against the enemies of the Israelites. Early Israelites likely engaged in polytheistic practices that were common across Seemetic religion because the Israeli religion was a derivative of the Canaanite. So, it's a derivative of the Canaanite religion and included a variety of deities, including El, Asher, and Bal. Yahweh likely became conflated with L in later centuries, taking his place as the head of the pantheon in the Israelite religion.
>> Okay, Gambit, but with your logic, didn't you say that like I believe in religion because it makes me feel good?
Like, can't we just say, yeah, there's no physical evidence, but this answer makes me feel good.
>> Okay, so he did get me. I am wrong that it started out in the Canonite, but it did. It was in the Canaanite pantheon before um the Hebrew texts.
Okay. So, he was right and I was right.
>> Okay.
>> So, it was a Canaanite. It was still a Canaanite belief way before the Jews.
>> Okay. So, but it it did not originate as a can like um it it came from um where he's correct. It came from um it was added in as he was saying. So, it was added in, but it was still a Canonite pantheon before uh the Jews.
I just don't care. Jaden, Deuteron Deuteronomy 8:9.
Is that what they say? Like uh Yahweh is Israel or something like that?
Um, that I don't know.
Where am I wrong?
Jaden, correct me.
I don't like using the Wikipedia.
No, it's where Yahweh.
>> So, it's not even cons. It's not even a consensus of what Gambit saying.
That is one of the arguments.
One argument is very strong that it's a Canonite god. One argument is very strong that it's Edomite.
So, >> seems like a stretch.
>> He's extremely biased. Basically, he's confirmation bias cherrypicking his information.
>> I don't know why we even had that conversation. He granted his god was illogical.
>> Yeah, he did.
>> Yeah. I don't care, Gambit.
And that's in accordance with one um interpretation. You're cherrypicking your interpretations.
Also, uh, Cody, do you believe in the multiverse at all or are you like solely not?
>> I would love to, but there's no demonstration.
>> Uh, I can show you where it follows in every way.
>> I know it's it follows the laws of physics and mathematics, but there's no demonstration of external worlds >> in the same sense of where we can fill in the gaps of what we have in our world and make an like an exact prediction.
Uh, I'm agnostic either.
Like here let me show you this. Uh let's say for the sake of argue well I mean it's true that black holes exist right?
>> If black holes mathematically follow on this side who's to say it doesn't mathematically follow on the other side.
>> Correct. But there's no demonstration that there is another side.
That's the problem. This is theoretical.
>> Theoretical. But I'm showing you how it's definitely possible and definitely sound.
>> It's also possible for God to exist.
I don't It's not sound though because there's no demonstration. We don't actually know >> if we I mean I don't know man cuz if we we discovered black holes with mathematics, right?
>> Right. But we didn't say that they were true until we observed and tested them.
>> We didn't say it was true because of how [ __ ] scary it was if it was.
>> But there's also no justification to accept it except for the mathematics.
Like yeah, that's is it most plausibly true?
Yes. Am I going to grant it as true? No.
>> I I'll have to give you like the full rundown one day.
>> Yeah. Send me We'll have a conversation, but I would love for it to be true.
That'd be awesome cuz But here's the problem with stuff like that is that leads into um pansychism being possible. That leads into supernatural things possibly being true.
>> That doesn't follow supernatural and panic >> multiverse for instance.
And no, no, because everything still has to abide by the laws of physics.
>> They could could they not be different in some other world?
>> They can be different in the sense of like more gravity or more.
>> Right. If there's more gravity, there could be a Supermanlike thing.
>> Like what?
>> Superman, for instance, is nothing but an alien from a planet with way more [ __ ] gravity. Hence his flying ability. He can't fly on on Krypton. He can only fly on Earth. So if the multiverse is true, we could absolutely have [ __ ] Superman. We could also have Harry Potter because there could be different mech different weights of mechanics allowing for different manipulations of air, water, fire, earth.
>> Did you read Equinox's comment?
>> Equinox's comment.
Pansychism. The whole universe is ill.
Panscism.
>> Yeah, I hate pansychism. But that that's my problem with multiverse is it opens up so many doors to so many just completely [ __ ] nuts stuff.
>> No, under white under like black hole theory that that's not really a possibility.
>> It's not a possibility for there to be a world with way greater gravity allowing and entailing for that person here to fly.
>> No, it would not vary that much.
>> How do you know that? See, this is the problem. We don't know.
>> It's the bridge. It's a loop quantum theory. That doesn't answer the how do you know that it can't >> because the way it is possible doesn't follow like the way that >> the mathematics would allow the gravity to be different >> to what degree I guess would be the question but to what degree would also allow someone to fly you know what I'm saying and how do we know >> I don't think more gravity equal fly >> superman >> that's your evidence >> superman moon moonwalks like you're practically flying you jump Super high, super far.
>> Yeah, but that's not what flying is.
That means you jump high.
>> Well, then I would grant Hulk.
>> Like, that's possible.
>> My point is there's there's if Multiverse is true, there's a universe where these MCU characters could be [ __ ] real.
>> That's the thing. It wouldn't be supernatural because it's natural.
>> I know it wouldn't be supernatural, but it's if we grant stuff like that, then why the [ __ ] not grant modal for God?
Because there is some world where the physics could be different >> mathematics. They don't >> there. Well, no, but that's the thing.
This is an argument that has no demonstration. That's the problem. Is it mathematically possible? Yeah. It's also mathematically possible for God to exist.
That's the thing. If you want to grant one of them, you have to grant them both. That's why I'm so hardcore.
>> No, I think it would counteracts like cuz if the multiverse is true, then then God isn't a necessity, right? He wouldn't hold to the >> he could still hold. And if you grant the plausibility based in mathematics and logic without demonstration, why don't you grant the plausibility >> S5 being >> like a cosmic being maybe like uh like something the closest we can get to God, but it still follows the laws of logic.
Nothing would be uh a logical and also wouldn't be supernatural.
>> I agree that it wouldn't be supernatural by literal definition, but it would still make it plausible.
I'm trying to think >> cuz I'm trying to think of a god that wouldn't break the laws of logic. Um, >> see what I'm saying? There's none.
>> Krishna.
Now, I I wouldn't even consider like for one, all these universes would still have the if the black hole theory is true, all these would still have the same m uh makeup pretty much of hydrogen and helium. So, it wouldn't vary too much.
>> Why would it if there's different bubbles?
>> No, cuz you're sucking matter from one end going down to an infinite point using the same thing.
>> Oh, so you're Okay, I see what you Okay.
Okay. Okay. That makes more sense. I was totally not understanding I was not understanding the concept. Okay, that makes sense.
>> No, that's inflationary theory.
>> That makes sense.
>> Totally different.
>> Oh man.
>> What about this though? Time travel is theoretically possible.
>> It is.
>> If it was found in a another universe, we would know.
Um, if it's time travel in the No, in the sense of the it wouldn't be in the past, it would have to be in the future. The past is theoretically impossible.
>> We are in the past though.
>> Relative to what?
>> Their future. No, I'm saying like if they found time travel, their future selves came here in our past today.
>> Our present could be their future.
>> Well, okay. Like, let's say in 10,000 years we find time travel. That timeline already exists. They could come back right now, but they haven't. So we will never find time travel >> unless you hold to it hasn't happened yet and once it does happen we can then go back but if we then go back we already are there yeah know that >> I don't I don't think going back is possible at all I think you would only be able to slow I don't I think you can slow maybe >> in the sense of time dilation but I don't >> like a red shift >> yeah but I don't think it is actually possible because think about it if traveling in the past was possible it would already happened >> that's what I'm Yeah. So, the past is theoretically impossible. The future, we don't know, >> but they're still on the same line that could finitely be reached to.
>> Now, I I would argue that it's not possible at all because our present could be relative to someone in the past future, >> right?
>> Yeah.
>> I think it's impossible. But I do think time dilation, we can manipulate that in a crazy way.
>> I wonder how that would work.
>> Gravity, I guess you can manipulate gravity to such a degree to cause that.
But well, it's crazy to think that like let's say we have infinite materials and like infinite brains for whatever. Like we would be able to make our own mass so big enough.
>> That's what she said. that we can okay that we can live on and then then we can control how much we age.
>> I think that would entail a lot more work though cuz like aging is oxygen.
>> We'd have to create something else that keeps us alive but allows us to breathe.
>> Aging is time based.
Well, I'm saying our body's degrading based on time is through oxygen.
>> Well, sure. What I'm saying is like, let's say I'm next to a black hole, like the common twin experiment, right? If I'm on a black hole for five years >> is the equivalent because of that mass and how I would be moving because I would have to go near the speed of light to not go in the black hole.
>> I would have to go 99.9% or something like that. So if I do that 28 years would pass on Earth when only five years pass for me.
That's possible.
>> It is. Speed motion and gravity has a huge toll on it.
>> Dude, I think the most scientifically accurate movie of all time is going to be Interstellar.
>> It really is. It's my favorite movie.
>> It's so [ __ ] accurate. I love it.
>> That's exactly how a black hole would look, by the way.
>> But it would shred us.
>> Not from that distance.
Like the way they were showing it, that's exactly how it would look. It would literally look like an effect where the bottom is looks hotter than the top like and there would be a phase like if you're falling into the black hole it would feel like lifetimes pass because of how it moves.
That is so cool. That's so [ __ ] cool.
>> But we would die of radiation.
So [ __ ] cool.
I wonder how the rings are formed cuz it's literally like a planet.
It's actually an optical illusion.
>> Really?
>> Mhm. Like that that ring towards you is is just matter basically matter and light getting wrapped in it. So that ring towards you is going to appear brighter than the ring above because of how it's warping your vision.
looking at the actual hole itself.
That's so cool. God, that's so [ __ ] cool.
That's such a nerdy [ __ ] thing.
What's up, midnight?
>> Why is there no opposition?
>> Um, I've had like six reports. I'll have to restart.
>> All right. Well, we can just do that if you want.
>> Yeah, absolutely. If you're coming back, I'm not done talking about black holes.
I got you.
>> That is so cool. Especially I don't know how I I guess I can grant that multiverse idea and that it would still be similar. Um I feel like if we had a multiverse though, the uh life in another planet or another world would not be at all the same here.
Oh, it was hidden behind the graphic.
I'm so sorry, guys. Yeah, I meant to make like a banner for this graphic, like my there is no evidence one. Um, but I thought this one looked really cool.
Yeah, but the mint the mint what's cool about like the black hole. It's uh it's called for kunk. I think it's forced for the universe. It pretty much means that um black hole sucks in matter over here brings it down to a plank volume size and it can't go up or side to side because of the black holes gravity. So it has to go down and it punches like a hole through spaceime.
>> So spaceime is physical.
uh you could uh using quant loop quantum theory in a sense where like in the sense of I would say physical in the sense of like uh I would have to explain loop quantum theory. So loop quantum theory is like fabric is a bunch of loops and each one of those loops is a plank volume size which is like 10 to the uh power of a negative 105 I think it is.
>> Bam. That's a very small number.
>> Damn.
>> So once matter gets squished down to that point, it can't sit still. So it has to go down. And that's where like uh it's called a quantum bounce.
>> Yeah.
>> And it goes through this other point bouncing to another point in spaceime.
>> Never teleport. I know that the quantum bounce theory is teleportation.
That's entanglement.
>> Is it?
>> I think so.
Quantum teleportation is the sound thing like bounce being that the two the one is everywhere at the same time.
>> It's basically describing that energy has nowhere to go at that that small of a point. And quantum loop theory is basically saying that those loops are the maximum we can go. Like you can't go smaller than that, >> right? So if it gets to that point, it needs to go somewhere and that ends up race ripping a hole in spaceime which then would put all this energy in a false vacuum and that would lead to quantum fluctuations and that would lead to another potential universe.
I'm very curious why you accept these theoreticals.
Um, >> but not theoreticals.
>> Does it make sense in our expansion?
>> Yeah, but so does okay. If we if I grant these frameworks and the mathematical stats behind it, then it is true. if we don't require demonstration.
But that's the same for like modal because if we're not requiring demonstration of the necessity of God, >> that's the thing. We have demonstration in the sense that >> we can see it happening using positive and negative energy in our Oh, you know, I haven't explained that yet. So quantum in in quantum stuff like as expansion goes energy basically increases with spacetime being stretched right because that's all that expansion is >> right.
>> So so positive energy would be like anything physical like dark energy matter you know uh anything that takes space on the space-time fabric pretty much that negative energy has to balance out with that. This is where you can argue that law of conservation is true because that positive and negative has to positive has to balance out. So that negative represents normally gravity in layman terms.
So these have to so there's a that's where like and that corresponds with quant uh with quantum fluctuations too >> because fluctuations is there's a field that's energy dense that energy dense field spikes up causing a fluctuation that makes particle that particle expands so quick that that positive and ne negative energy can't stay together so it splits up and it makes that potential energy energy and reality.
Theism is still the illogical belief in some sort of a god.
All right. If you want to start out with Will, I'm going to go grab a cup of coffee. Sure.
What's up?
>> What's up, brother? How old are you?
>> I'm 20.
>> Nice.
>> Listen, I I I'm not gonna like be a great debater, but I'm going to be honest. Like, I personally believe in like a, you know, deism, but I think that there could have been a god who created us through a process of evolution, you know?
>> Sure.
>> Uh, set the laws in place, you know.
>> Okay. That would be like a I think that would be like a begging the question policy, right? Because like all we see in our world right now is that these things are true and that's like that's the truth, right? That's a brute fact that the laws of physics apply.
>> Yeah.
>> Like I don't you're kind of just moving the goalpost one step back, right?
>> I mean I Yeah, I guess it's just I don't know. I just um I have a little bit trouble kind of it's not even that I feel like I want to believe that there's a god.
>> Yeah.
>> Um but I also I also acknowledge that there's evidence, you know, suggesting evolution and all that.
>> Oh yeah. I think what would benefit you most if you study philosophy because like look at Hinduism or Buddhism. Those are pretty much philosophies.
>> Yeah. I yeah I know a little bit about uh Buddhism not too much about Hinduism though >> it basically means that it's something called karma where it's good or bad karma u so the the like the Christian view of be nice to your neighbors you know what I mean that's the same kind of concept right it's just like be nice to people around you and in your next life when you reincarnate you will be more fortunate you will have more things >> well I think the thing that kind uh deterred me from like kind of ever really looking into Hinduism is uh don't we have like a I forget what it's called? It's like the chass system or something. Um >> chis >> it's something like if you're uh born uh poor you shouldn't make money.
>> Um >> so the whole con no it's the whole concept is that let's say you're born into poverty right?
>> Yeah. in their religion or philosophy, however you view it, that basically means in your past life you were a bad person. So now you have to make up for that and be good in this life and then in your next life you will be higher on this chain.
>> All right. Yeah.
>> All right. So it's kind of like a foolproof plan, but the whole gist is like be nice to everyone and you live a good life, an honest life and then >> Yeah, I can I can get down with that.
Um, but yeah, I appreciate it. I just wanted to see what your guys' thoughts on that was.
>> Yeah, no problem, brother.
>> Yeah, nice talking to you guys.
>> He's really honest. He was >> a good faith interer.
>> Oh, yeah.
>> I think if that guy studies philosophy, he's gonna have a really good time.
The next books I'm going to be reading are about uh philosophies that I don't grant at all and I'm going to hate it.
>> I'm going to be I ordered Grahamy's book for arguments against God.
>> That's a good idea.
>> That's a really good book. I still haven't read um the book um oh [ __ ] What's it called? It's like one of the most famous something about God. God is dead.
>> No, God is dead or something like that.
Um >> God is dead.
>> Chat, help.
>> I've never heard of >> Dawkins. I want to say it's Dawkins.
>> Darth.
>> No, Charles.
Darth Duckets.
>> Not Nietze. No, not like an actual like philosopher like God is dead. Is it?
>> I I think >> that's not what I'm thinking of. That's not what I'm thinking of then.
>> Can you describe it?
The God delusion. That's what I'm thinking.
That's not by Grand Mafia, is it?
Oh, >> okay.
I was like, I've never heard of that.
Docking with Dawkins.
>> Oh, apparently that is Dawkins.
>> Oh, you're watching the YouTube chat.
>> Yeah, I can't I can see it.
>> Oh, that's right. I have it up now.
>> Yeah, it's uh it's kind of like slightly in the way. It's like what? You also can't put it anywhere else.
>> I mean, I can make it smaller.
It's like I can What if we um Let's do this. Let's make it smaller.
Like that. That's better.
>> Yeah, that's better. Yeah, that's better. You might >> Would it look good if you center it with your There we go.
>> Okay.
>> I'll figure that out later. I'll turn it into a banner.
>> Yeah, I think it would be really I think it would be way more useful if we if you find out a way to make it so YouTube can hear us. I know there's a >> I need to message because I've got the correct microphone on here.
>> Test test test >> because you get way more on YouTube, don't you?
>> Um, no.
Say something.
What's up?
>> If I do Yeah, it doesn't let me. Um, wait. What if I Nope, it's the same thing. I don't know.
Damn, I can't find a way.
Damn, it really died off.
[ __ ] >> Yeah, I can't really find it either.
>> Did he get reported again?
>> No, it just hasn't got on the for you page.
That's the hardship of getting so many reports.
Even restarting it at some point doesn't work.
Yeah.
Wonder if there's a way to get around that. Oh, yeah. I just need to be Justin or Dean.
>> They definitely do something. I don't I don't know. Did he text Justin?
>> No.
Dalton is live.
That could be some of it, but it's not going to be all of it.
I've been atheist for 45 years. No evidence to believe otherwise. Yeah, exactly. Literally objective fact.
H >> how is there no evidence? Cuz there's no evidence. There's no evidence of unicorns either. You wouldn't ask me to prove that there's no evidence of unicorns, though. That's nonsensical.
The person claiming the unicorn is the one that has to prove the unicorn.
You're claiming a unicorn.
>> I invited them.
>> They're not going to join. I know, bro.
Worth it.
I'm getting a bit too blue in chat. Oh, that's funny.
>> Wait, do you hold to eternal universe?
>> Yeah.
demonstrate that the beginning of time is from the expansion that if there was no >> I actually don't think I have an argument >> uh Change.
Change is what you need to hold to. But you can hold the only hold this FaceTime eternal not.
Okay, Nordic. I'll reinvite you later.
Nordic said he'll join up. He needs to change something.
Um, that's why I was because it's kind of hard to hold two eternal univer. I have an argument that you could use.
>> Yeah, but how does a non-changing i.e. non-time universe turn into a changing i.e. time universe?
>> Cuz it's always existed. It didn't.
>> Yeah. But how do we explain that it's always existed if always had a start?
>> Sure. Because uh change is the measure of time, right?
So if a changeless state cannot change to a state with change then change must have always existed.
Therefore and if then if time is the measure of change then time must have always existed then you get space.
>> I like that. Okay.
>> Then you get space time.
>> Gotcha.
>> Because of relativity.
>> I like that one.
I don't think I've ever actually like gone in depth on that one.
Well, good thing you know that. That would have been a [ __ ] hard thing to get out of if you did.
>> Well, I I hold so hard to epistemology that I never have to explain everything about everything to need to know it, >> right?
>> Definitely a flaw.
I mean, I I do um I'm reading You're going to make fun of me for this. I've been reading it for a month. Humor is Knowledge, Reality, and Values. Um, and uh, Spinosza's ethics.
>> I like Spinosa.
>> I do, too. There's some I don't like the way that he says God.
>> What's he say like, >> personhood?
>> Like he attributes intelligence to it.
Technically, if he's omniresent, then it would include personal.
>> Yeah. And that's the weird thing. It's almost like panentheism.
He like teeter totters between pan and pannon.
>> Okay.
>> And that's the weird part. I mean, I love the arguments and I have nothing against the arguments at all. Um, except for it also seems to get kind of darty.
Like I If all thoughts are necess, the only way that I can ground his argument in reality with his thoughts on thought would be that as long as it adheres to the laws of God being that of nature and cannot be broken, then all things imagined must all exist and be true.
Because he gets kind of darty with the I think, therefore I am. If you if you grant that, then you have to grant a multiverse.
>> As long as it doesn't break the laws of physics, I can. But again, it's also like there's no demonstration except for in mathematics.
I mean I can give you the cool thing is that let's say that whole theory is true about uh you know the uh black hole to white hole or black hole bridge white hole leads to energy being in the [ __ ] false vacuum and then fluctuations.
The thing is is that there's two type of universes that can form >> because >> so you hold to bubble >> hole and hole.
>> No, I hold the quantum fluctuations.
Yeah, I guess bubble in a sense.
>> I love the idea of it. It's just >> Well, think about it this way. People are going to be like, well, what causes the first black hole? Obviously, that can't be caused by that, right?
Think about it this way.
The reason quantum fluctuation occurs at a rapid rate is because it's energy dense. But technically, with enough time, you can have a non-energy dense field that will at some point fluctuate.
>> Yeah.
>> Fluctuation has a chance.
>> Yeah. That has a chance of becoming a universe.
>> I do hold to that. I think the most plausible scenario is going to be quantum field.
>> So, oh yeah. So, what I hold to is like like they're like, "Okay, what caused the first black hole?" You can say, "Well, this spaceime always existed and the first fluctuation was a very rare thing and just happened by pure chance." And then from there, the black holes were embedded. That's way better.
that where he just changed.
>> Yeah, that one's better.
>> Yeah, I need to talk to Trusta verify about his um timers as well.
>> And then Contra, I like the way that she does her um moving label thing.
>> You need to get a bird and shift count.
>> Oh jeez, there's so many dude. [ __ ] Jesus Christ.
The amount of [ __ ] fallacies heard on a daily Is that guy back yet?
>> Nope.
>> Oh [ __ ] >> Um, we can just take people to talk to him then and say if they want to talk. But >> yeah.
>> What's up, Smith?
>> So, wait.
Are you over the age of 18?
>> Yeah.
>> Cool. Which God do you believe in?
>> Uh, you said there's no evidence for God.
>> Yep. Which god do you believe in?
>> I got I got one better for you.
There's no evidence that you actually exist.
>> Yeah, there is.
>> This could all be a dream right now.
Prove it. This is not a dream.
>> That would be not living in a dream right now.
>> That would be a claim requiring proof.
>> Prove to me that we're not in a dream.
Brother, that would be a claim requiring justification. I have no justification to believe that we are in a dream. All evidence justifies that we exist.
>> Our all evidence justifies that God exists.
>> Provide it.
>> We are here right now.
>> That's not evidence towards God.
>> I ask you to provide to me that we are not in a dream.
>> Brother, I exist because my mom and dad [ __ ] >> No, >> that's not a god.
>> But you don't know that that's true.
>> I do know it's true. It's biological.
real parents. You cannot prove 1% is a real why every day says 99%.
>> Because the 1% is separate you.
>> No. No, it's not.
>> Yeah.
>> So, it would be 100% then.
>> Incorrect. You are 100% their child, but you have different DNA, dude.
>> So, you have DNA from your father and your mother. If both you guys took a DNA test, it would say 99%. That 1% isn't that 1% is >> Hey. A, you're incorrect on that.
>> B, if it was correct, the 1% would still be a separation of you and your parent.
>> You know what a genetic mutation is?
>> Use, use that same logic and you will find evidence for God. That's all I'm asking you, brother.
>> Prove it.
>> I guarantee we will with that logic.
>> So, you will find evidence for God, right? With that logic, >> logic still haven't provided.
>> So, there we go. Point proven.
>> Point proven, right?
>> I said under your flaw logic. Sure. What is there to say >> under logic? Yes, I will find God.
>> With that logic, God. Hey, that great evidence, brother.
>> Yeah. In accordance with flawed, facious logic, you're correct.
>> That's logic, bro. You just said, "Oh, I'm here because >> what are the laws of logic?"
>> You and your mother and your dad did, you know, they did the thizzle.
>> Yeah.
>> To get you here, right?
>> Right. Were they in a dream?
>> How do you think they got here?
>> Their parents did the same thing. Their parents did the same thing. You want to go all the way back to inorganic material proven through Miller to become organic.
>> Where did it start from?
>> The hot dense state.
>> So just like what? Like a a cell floating around.
>> Incorrect.
>> So what what's your belief? How do we get here?
>> Why would I believe a god had anything to do with it?
>> No. How do we Okay. So you tell me. How do we get here?
>> I don't know. Why do I Why should I believe a god?
>> So if you don't know, then why do you deny God?
>> Because there's no evidence for a god.
It's quite simple. I don't know does not mean therefore unicorn.
>> Okay. So what evidence for would it like for you to believe that there is a god that you >> There is no evidence for a god.
>> If you don't know where you came from or how >> I do know where I came from began.
>> I just asked you where explain to me where did it come from. You >> my parents [ __ ] >> No, I said where did it start from? Like where's the start of humanity? I don't know which one.
>> You don't know. Yeah. So why should I believe a god magically did it?
>> Like it doesn't make sense. Like your logic, >> you're right. You don't make sense. So what evidence >> your logic doesn't make sense.
>> What am I saying? That's incorrect.
>> It's like you want to be in denial.
>> Boys, his point is that instead of saying God, he can just say, "I don't know." And fill in the gap with anything like a cosmic cat >> and you'll believe a a cosmic cat did it instead of >> It's as logical as your god.
>> It's as logical as your god. superior intelligent.
>> No, the cosmic cat isn't the most intelligent.
>> Yeah, this cat doesn't have an owner.
>> And that's and you believe in them before you believe in God.
>> That's the problem with some humans.
Like we make ourselves >> you haven't provided any evidence, dude.
>> You're just calling us names.
>> I said use the same logic.
>> Smith, how old is you and your that your mom and your dad had you right?
All you're doing is talking, saying it only it makes sense for God to exist and then Oh, he ran.
>> No, >> he had a point.
>> Talking loud and ignoring everything we say does not make you right.
>> He was a cosmic cat.
I had to mute him cuz he just wasn't [ __ ] listening at all.
>> No, some people like preaching more than like actually trying to engage.
>> Yeah, redonkulus.
>> Here, lightning, come up. We can talk about it.
or not.
>> Yeah, everyone's too chicken [ __ ] >> There's Baze.
>> Nice.
>> What's up, Baze?
>> Hello.
>> You're over the age of 18?
Yes, I am.
>> All right. Which God do you believe in?
>> I just believe in a necessary being.
>> Okay.
>> Not really a specific one.
>> True. Why should we?
>> Well, first I want to clarify the terms.
Uh when you say evidence, sir, I don't know what that means. Keep talking.
>> You don't know the definition of evidence.
>> I don't know what you mean when you say evidence.
>> No. The definition of evidence.
>> There's not one specific definition of evidence.
>> The Oxford dictionary definition of evidence is facts and information leading to a true conclusion. the Oxford dictionary is the only way we can acquire.
>> Oh, I don't grant your philosophical definition of raising probability. But even if I did, it still requires facts and information leading to the probability and you still need data to analyze.
>> Why?
>> I just explained. Try listening.
>> No, you didn't. You just said that it leads to something without actually giving me a justification.
>> I did.
>> No, you didn't.
>> Yes, I did.
>> What?
>> So, what justification did you give?
>> Facts and evidence.
>> How about these days? We can use your definition of evidence.
>> I literally granted justifications. We use justifications to prove facts.
>> Brother, I literally granted your definition. You need to pay attention.
>> Unmute and be honest >> and stop trying to just get words in.
>> Yeah. Even if I do grant your definition, you still require facts and information for the data required for probability because probability is comparison analyses.
>> Yeah, that's fine. So evidence which you grant is raising the probability. So we can give a induction account to say why atheism etc. is false and it raises the probability that atheism is true.
>> Okay. So you're giving No, wait. One sec. One sec. We have to we have to we have to cover prior probability as a Beijing argument.
>> Well, induction using Beijing inferences. Doesn't mean that the induction.
>> So there's not prior probability.
>> What mean you mean prior and posterior?
Yes, there's prior probability.
>> You think it's either 50/50 God or atheism?
>> That's not what we just said. I'm saying we probistic assessment given the evidence which doesn't have to be Beijing. They're different accounts of probability.
>> No, what he said is what you said. It's it's either atheism is false and God is true. That's a false dichotomy.
>> That's what I said. I said either I said this argument is going to be a reputation to atheism. You need Let me finish.
>> Atheism is just a lack of a belief system. It's not a belief system >> unnecessarily.
>> It's not it's not the negation of a claim.
The negation of a claim is not just a lack of belief of a claim.
>> We're saying that we have no evidence to believe in your proposition. We have no dogma. We have no belief system.
>> We have no dog. We have no We have no I'm sorry. I'm talking.
>> We have no dog. This is my show, [ __ ] >> I don't care. [ __ ] your show. Cool.
>> No. [ __ ] dude. I want to All right.
Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods because a means lack of or without and theism means belief in god or gods.
>> Just do talk do talking stick, bro. Do talking stick.
>> Yeah, we can do talking stick. So the argument is establishing induction. Yes, just using Beijian inferences. But I mean I don't want to get into the meta by saying that induction is only establishing Beijian inferences. But look, that's fine. Look, so I'll just provide the argument. Is that fine?
I do have a problem with prior probability. You're making a probability argument without >> for prior probability.
>> Yes. It's not A and B. Like let's say your god is the capital G O D, right?
Like he's just all powerful everything, right?
>> Yeah. I'm not saying that there's only two options that either.
>> Okay. That's what that's why I'm saying that's a big flaw in a prior probability because it doesn't limit your probability. It's like getting No, it's like it's like getting a dart board.
It's like getting a dart board, putting every single infinite possible god is like a dot on that dart board and then throwing it and saying hopefully it lands on my god.
>> Yeah, that's not what prior probability is because when it comes to the Beijing inference that the prior probability is just the initial belief uh which is resulting in the posterior probability or the upgraded belief and we denote this by saying posterior equals the likelihood times the prior. So we have informative prior or we have uninformative prior.
>> Sure. So you're saying a god, not your god.
>> I'm just saying a god in general. By the way, a god just denotes some necessary being. That's just what a god is.
>> Sir, I don't know if you're talking about your personal or just literally a possible god.
>> Personal god and a possible god. That's just like pretty uh >> Okay, but you have to say like possible god, right? like not not a necessary being that hints towards one necessary being.
>> Can we have an honest kind conversation?
>> Any negation to theism will lower it will lower its probability of being true?
>> Sure.
>> Fine. But for a possible god. Yeah.
Sure.
>> Yeah. So if it lowers the probability of some hypothesis being true then we should not value the hypothesis of being true since it lowers the probability. So we should obviously um look towards theism as a higher probabilistic hypothesis just given the evidence.
Right.
You haven't provided the evidence.
>> Yeah, that's what I'm trying to do. But you guys are getting too meta. So, premise one, if an arguments or if a worldview does not have a successful coordination, then it cannot ground rational belief system any negation to theism do not have a successful coordination.
>> Slow down. Slow down. Repeat it. Repeat one.
>> Yeah. So, premise one, any belief or arguments would do not have a successful coordination.
>> Has What do you mean? What does that I said a lot of things.
>> Yeah, I didn't hear that word. You were talking a little bit quick just to like >> Which word? I said a lot of words.
>> Dude, just slow down and stop with the [ __ ] meta filro douchery way of talking.
>> Oopsy daisy.
>> You don't need to be 500 words per minute [ __ ] filibustering through a million different big ass words.
>> Premise one.
>> See, what we're not going to do is that if you want to have a conversation, shut up. If you want to have a conversation, we can have a conversation.
You're not coming out of the gates, out of the woodwork with all this filro [ __ ] What do you think about P1? What do you think about P1? Oh, you don't understand. Low tier. Low tier. Keep up.
Keep up. Tracking error. Track it. [ __ ] that [ __ ] Talk to me like a goddamn human. You don't want to talk to me like a human. Go [ __ ] yourself and get off the [ __ ] panel. It's annoying. It's [ __ ] No philosopher actually talks like this. [ __ ] you if you do. Do you want to have an actual conversation or do you want to be a douchebag [ __ ] Which one?
>> Anyway, so sorry.
>> Oh, well, you're angry. You're angry.
Shut the [ __ ] up. Get the [ __ ] out of here, you [ __ ] loser.
I have hatred for Phil Bros.
>> He was going to He was going to make an argument, I'm pretty sure, about how it's more >> It's the way you really want to type your premises in the chat. Type your premises in chat if you really want an answer.
>> So anyway, P1, P1, P1's going to be So what did I just say? What is P1? What is P1? Can you just justify what I said for P1? Can you say a word for word?
Ward for word. What I said, can you do it? Can you do it? Oh, track and error.
Track and error. Track and error. Track and error. Track and error. Low tier.
You're getting rhetorical back shots.
Rhetorical back shots. Slow the [ __ ] down and talk like a human.
>> Oh, lightning bug.
Prove it, Joey. What's up, Lightning?
>> Hello.
>> How you doing?
>> Good.
>> Good. You over the age of 18?
>> Yeah, I'm 20.
>> Cool. Which God do you believe in?
>> Uh, Jesus Christ.
>> All right. What you got for us?
>> Uh, nothing. I was just wondering if you take like the Bible for evidence.
>> Oh, that's right. So, you have a response? Um, it depends what you kind of mean by evidence, right? Because evidence is normally like a peer-reviewed situation, like where it has external things that can kind of confirm it. Uh, in that sense, no. I can acknowledge that there might be some true things in there, but I wouldn't call it evidence.
>> All right. Just wondering.
>> Okay. Do you take Spider-Man as proof of Spider-Man?
>> No.
>> Because it's a book talking about fictional [ __ ] Correct.
>> Yes.
>> The fictional [ __ ] would be a superhuman being walking up walls, etc. Correct.
>> Mhm.
>> Yeah. So, the Bible talks about a superhering superhero superhuman fictional horseshit story about a man turning water into wine, coming back from the dead, talking snakes and donkeys.
It's all fictional. It is not evidence for its truth. Same as Spider-Man is not evidence for its truth.
Now, if I saw Spider-Man And we could prove that it was true by watching him, testing him, observing him. I would grant it truth.
Just like you could taste and test the air.
>> Yeah, you can.
>> Sorry.
Oh, >> you can t test air.
>> That's a stupid idea. Regardless if you needed to do it or not.
Oh man.
>> You think you can't test air?
>> I don't care if you can. That's the stupidest thing someone would come up with. Here, let's put in a test tube.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. You tested the air.
>> Yeah.
>> Sorry. You don't like scientific rigor because it doesn't it debunks the [ __ ] out of your myth.
Wait, do you hold that stance of like uh if you don't see it, it must not be the case.
>> No, clearly not.
>> Okay, so what's wrong with air?
>> Oh man, nothing's wrong with air.
>> How do you know air exists?
>> What?
>> How do you know air exists?
>> By hearing it. I'm sorry.
>> You hear it?
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. Is that a test?
>> That's a test.
>> Correct. So, you still require test >> and yet you're laughing at me for requiring test.
>> I mean, I don't put in a test tube and zap it.
>> Did I say put air into a test tube and zap it? Or is that a straw man from you because you're ignorant on what we know?
I don't know what you know >> exactly. So, it's going to be a straw, man. You're taking something you have heard some dumbass say before and implying or putting it into our mouths as if we believe stupid [ __ ] You're the one that believes stupid [ __ ] If you would like to prove it's not stupid [ __ ] we're all ears. But sitting there and that's so dumb doesn't make you win an argument.
Oh man, you are way too serious.
>> Yep. Got a problem with the [ __ ] off.
>> No, calm down.
>> Lightning, how old? I I do have like some basic questions like like how old what shape is the earth?
>> I don't know. 6,000 years old.
>> That's not what he asked.
>> That's also a crazy answer, but >> you mean the shape of the earth? Uh, it's a sphere.
>> Okay. And it's 6,000 years old.
>> Sure.
>> Sure.
>> Like I want I want your argument. Like >> I don't have an argument.
>> You just think that's the case.
>> Yeah.
>> So what was your point and come in here?
>> Literally to ask that first question.
Take the Bible as evidence.
>> Cool.
All righty.
That was annoying a little bit.
Oh man, heaven be dancing for that 20.
Do you believe like uh sesthesia is like proof that consciousness must be a a brain like emergent thing?
>> I think it's some good evidence pointing to it.
>> I wish I had that.
You know, they did like a like a research thing. They were like they asked these people who have sesthesia.
They're like, "Do do you even they don't view it as a medical condition, by the way?"
Because there's no downside. It's just kind of It normally actually benefits them.
>> I see uh I did some research on this recently cuz I see auras on people and things and I looked up the reasoning behind that and it's your brain attributing colors to the minute details of like microp expressions in people to determine whether they're safe, hostile, etc. And that allows you to see people like me to see auras around them.
Does he have senesthesia to an extent?
>> Yeah, pretty cool. It's kind of like a a handy like precursor of can I trust this person or is this person a happy or sad, angry, etc. type person. Pretty cool stuff.
It's not always accurate obviously, but >> yeah, I I wish uh my girlfriend was saying the same thing and I got to go after this, by the way, but she was saying, "Imagine going to like a she's telling me this. Imagine going to like a like a like a concert of some kind and having the type of sesthesia where you see a bunch of shapes and colors popping out of like all these noises.
>> That'd be interesting.
>> Be the craziest thing. All right, man.
want to head out.
>> Yeah. Adios, brother. Appreciate you being here.
>> Yep.
>> We're going to go ahead and end as well, guys. It's um kind of died off after all those reports, so going ahead and end it. I might go live again later tonight, but we'll see. We'll see. I'll keep you updated in the Discord. Appreciate you all being here. Love you all.
And YouTube, you are my favorite. I love you guys. I will see you and talk to you
Related Videos
BSA Goldstar - I gave up! And why animals beat humans!
thebingleywheeler
102 views•2026-05-31
The 'Islamic dilemma': Quran tells Christians to judge by the Gospel
canceledkings
1K views•2026-05-29
Letter to An Ex-Muslim
FarhanAhmedZia
5K views•2026-05-29
Seneca - Escape The Crowd, Find Your Inner Peace!
realfreewisdom
114 views•2026-05-29
Scholar Explains: WHAT IS A GNOSTIC?
fightbackpodcast
965 views•2026-05-31
Fulton Sheen: A Mente Tenta se Manter Jovem para não Sofrer com os Impactos do Tempo
SantoCotidiano-port
673 views•2026-05-29
Everyone is sprinting towards nothing.
ElinJen
2K views•2026-05-29
The fourth great humiliation. #jimmycarr #crowdwork #hecklers #standup
jimmycarr
576K views•2026-05-28
