Anti-gay Christian insists on getting thrashed on God's existence

Added: 2026-05-10

[00:00:00]You think God is truth? If God didn't exist, would it be true that God didn't exist?

[00:00:06]>> Uh, no.

[00:00:08]>> It wouldn't be true that God didn't exist if God didn't exist. You don't think that A implies A?

[00:00:15]>> Hey, how's it going? How old are you?

[00:00:17]>> Uh, 34.

[00:00:19]>> Yep. And do you think there's something wrong with being gay?

[00:00:23]>> Yes. Yes.

[00:00:25]>> Okay. What do you think is wrong with being gay?

[00:00:30]Um well many things, right? It's self harm.

[00:00:35]>> Oh, why why is it necessarily self harm?

[00:00:40]>> Um it's it's a denial a denial of of the actual state of affairs.

[00:00:49]So um >> you said it was self harm. Let's start with that claim. Um why is it self harm?

[00:00:55]In what way are they harming themselves?

[00:01:00]Well, it's it's a redefinition of the actual state of affairs. So, like when it comes to the distinction between lust and love, uh it would replace the meaning of the word love with lust.

[00:01:12]>> You don't think that it's possible for gay people to just genuinely love each other?

[00:01:16]>> How? I I guess like how would you possibly explain?

[00:01:18]>> Oh, look look look. I know I'm not okay, but it's >> I don't know how that person got up there. Um, also he was like 12. Okay, moving on.

[00:01:29]Um, sure. So I Gosh, sorry. Okay. Um, so you're saying that they're redefining something that they're redefining like love for lust, but what would you make of the fact that there are some like asexual gay couples, people who don't have a sexual relationship, but they're in like a romantic relationship with each other?

[00:01:53]Like how could you possibly explain that on your view?

[00:01:59]>> Well, that that would be still uh you know replacing what love love actually is, right? So basically lust is to place your desires over someone else's needs and that's um pretty it's it's pretty harmful, pretty destructive. Whereas love is to place someone else's needs uh over your desires. And someone's greatest need right is to be close to God, right? Close to their heavenly father. So if if you are trying to get them to worship you or worship pleasure or worship anything other than God, you know that that would be inherently harmful. So so love would be God himself, his very being, his very nature, his very essence.

[00:02:41]>> Okay. Wait. So, the asexual gay couple, like the like the gay romantic relationship, what need are they disregarding in favor of their desires?

[00:02:54]>> Uh, they're disregarding the other person's need to be close to God, right?

[00:02:59]Their heavenly father.

[00:03:01]>> Oh, I mean, that certainly is a claim.

[00:03:03]If Sure. Um, I I don't know. I guess I have no reason to think that God even exists.

[00:03:10]I have no reason to think that uh people's lives would be made better uh if they like started pretending that he did. Um you know, if that's our greatest need, it seems like God would just give everyone a religious experience because, you know, if God just loves us all very deeply and in order to live a good life, we all need to have some sort of religious experience to find God absent like the evidence cuz you know, it's not obvious. Then it just seems like God should give everyone a religious experience such that everybody has enough evidence to fulfill their needs.

[00:03:43]>> Sure. So I mean h have you ever done anything wrong in your life? Uh Ian >> Yeah.

[00:03:49]>> Okay. Yeah. You've done bad things. I've done bad things. The Bible says for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. So when you do something bad, do you do it against God? Right.

[00:03:59]Who is holy? Who is righteous? Who is pure? No.

[00:04:02]>> When you do something bad, God's not real.

[00:04:04]So, so then okay. So, so then do you some do something bad against a moral standard emanates from your mind?

[00:04:10]>> No. No, I don't think so. I'm a moral realist.

[00:04:13]>> Okay. So, what's what's this? What is its source? Like what's the standard?

[00:04:17]>> Yeah. It's going to be practical reason itself. In order to be logically consistent, you ought act virtuous.

[00:04:24]Otherwise, there's going to be contradictions in your worldview.

[00:04:28]>> Okay. So, so in order to be logically consistent, you ought act virtuous. Um, so I guess what what is virtue grounded in? Like is there an onlogical grounding?

[00:04:43]>> Okay. But but but logic logic is not prescriptive, right? It doesn't say you ought not kick the puppy into the ocean.

[00:04:50]You ought to be kind to orphans and widows, right? Laws of logic. There's a law of identity law in the middle law of non-contradiction but it doesn't go and tell you like oh stay faithful in your marriage like oh like you know >> um >> I agree with that yeah >> logic is descriptive but agency is prescriptive that in virtue of taking any action intentionally you evaluate that action as being worth taking which means that within every single action there's already normativity baked into it. Now this normativity this this like means end relationship can be logical or illogical and if it's logical then it's going to be virtuous.

[00:05:31]So in order to be a logical rational agent you must be virtuous otherwise there's going to be a contradiction in your belief system.

[00:05:41]Mhm. So you're you're you're arguing kind of for consistency like you're saying in order for this to be true like it must be co consistent coherent like all match match up together.

[00:05:54]>> Yes.

[00:05:55]>> But yeah but uh what what grounds the whole system in the first place like you know ju just to say that in order for me to act there must be an I mean this this is true right? in order for you every every action has an implicit ought. But what what makes it that there is an in the first place rather you know what what makes it that there is an like why why ought I live? Let's let's go with that. Why ought I live instead of not live?

[00:06:27]>> Yeah. Because in order to take any action at all any action at all you're going to need to live. If you can't live then you can't take an action. Which means that when you're deliberating about what should I do? You're asking the question like what is the action that I should take? Any answer you could possibly give to that is going to involve your continued living.

[00:06:49]>> So, >> so you just have a reason on that basis to continue to live >> because it's necessary for any other thing that you could possibly do.

[00:06:58]>> All right. So, you would say like the maid program in Canada is a great uh tra travesty and wickedness. It's truly evil.

[00:07:05]>> Sorry, wait. What's the maid program? Uh so the maid program in Canada allows people to uh take themselves out of this world and uh for for whatever they like you know feel >> depressed. Well here's the here's the nuance of virtue ethics is that specifically what I'm describing is I'm saying that everybody has a reason to keep on living. Now that reason might get overweighed or outweighed by some other reason. Like maybe you've lived a really good, long, happy 70 years, but you know what's up next for you and it's dementia. You saw it happen in your mother. You saw it happen in your sibling, your older sibling. Um, and you know that it's going to be like a sad, deteriorating process that you would rather not engage in. Well, at that point, you're welcome to At that point, you might have overweighing reasons uh to end your life if that's your future.

[00:08:04]>> All right. So, so, so the good is whatever helps like achieve your goals.

[00:08:09]>> No, the good is whatever achieves the good life. Everybody is bound to pursue the good life. The good life requires being virtuous. Therefore, everybody strictly ought be virtuous.

[00:08:22]Uh so who who who defines what the good life is?

[00:08:26]>> Yeah, the good life is going to be minimally defined as a life that everybody can rationally reflect on and approve of which is going to require things like justice and courage and temperance and wisdom. Otherwise, you can't even evaluate your own life if you don't have something like justice. Um and you aren't going to be able to act on the decisions, which means you're going to be disrespecting your like ability to deliberate. you'll be disrespecting your agency if you lack things like courage or temperance. And then in order to truly value things properly, that's going to require wisdom. So you need all of those things.

[00:08:59]Otherwise, you forfeit the good life.

[00:09:01]And being gay is within wisdom or is is within virtue. If you want a good historical example of this, Socrates engaged in homosexual behavior and he was one of the most virtuous people to have ever lived.

[00:09:17]So you said it would require everyone to reflect on and to approve. Um so are you possible to do that >> majority vote like saying like 90% of the people agree 100% like how can it be like this universal when everyone does >> because everybody ought to do it.

[00:09:37]>> The universality of it become comes from the fact that everybody has a reason to do it. Namely that it's necessary for the good life.

[00:09:45]Yeah, but you you you define the good life as 100% universal affirmation. Like unless you retract that definition, we could >> that actually just wasn't my definition.

[00:09:55]I can give you the definition again. The good life minimally is going to be defined as the sort of life that you're able to rationally reflect on and rationally approve of. In order for it to be rational, that means that there's going to be no contradictions within it.

[00:10:08]So the laws of logic necessitate that the life that you can rationally approve of is going to be the virtuous one. If you reject any of the virtues, it leads to contradictions.

[00:10:19]>> Okay? So rationally reflect on and rationally approve of and that there's no contradictions. Um so like you know if if I write a fantasy novel and it's self-consistent and not non-contradictory uh like does that make that inherently moral? like that makes it absolutely good, you know?

[00:10:40]>> I'm not sure I understand. It's not about whether or not like a work of writing you produce. Like I don't think it's like immoral um to give like a like a contradictory argument. It might be a bit confused. I'm not sure I'd say that you've done something like morally wrong there, though. If you're if you're spending your entire life making invalid arguments, well, maybe you're drifting into the territory of not living a good life. But I guess I just have no idea how that follows from what I've said.

[00:11:09]>> Okay. So you you said like rationally reflect on and rationally >> uh specifically in terms of your life >> minimally in order for it to qualify as the good life in the first place it needs to be the sort of life that you can rationally reflect on and rationally approve of.

[00:11:29]>> So what what what is the standard?

[00:11:33]What's what's the external standard that that determines that you ought be rational?

[00:11:38]>> Yeah. Because in so far as asking the question, you know, why ought I be rational is asking what reason do I have to be reasons responsive? If you're not already reasons responsive, uh then you're simply not going to be compelled by any answer that could possibly be given. Which means that in virtue of asking the question itself, it's a self-defeating question. Like the question answers itself. When you ask, "Why should I be rational?" Well, I mean, if you didn't already care about being rational, then no answer would possibly satisfy you.

[00:12:11]>> Well, yeah. I mean, that's that's still kind of grounding it in the self. I mean, that doesn't give >> it's a self-defeating argument or like self-answering question maybe.

[00:12:21]>> Maybe. Yeah, maybe like an appeal to consequence. But I guess other than that, so you said it's the the RA, you know, rational. to you also like the two things irrational and appeal to consistency.

[00:12:34]So it's it's self-contained, right? Like it's self-contained. Um >> if by that you mean like coherent. Yeah.

[00:12:43]>> Like it's self-consistent. Certainly.

[00:12:47]>> Could I guess could you say the two things? It's r the two rational things that you're saying.

[00:12:50]>> Yeah. You need to be able to deliberate on your life and rationally approve of it.

[00:12:55]Which just means that when you evaluate the sort of life that you live, the sort of ends that you hold, there are no contradictions there.

[00:13:05]>> Mhm. So you you you evaluate your life and you rationally prove it. So and if you valate there's no contradictions in there, right? There's no contradictions within it.

[00:13:16]>> It would be necessary. I don't know if it's sufficient, but it's necessary.

[00:13:20]>> Which means that virtues are going to be necessary in order to live the good life.

[00:13:26]Mhm. Yeah. So, I mean, just because you come up with a system that is self-consistent without contradictions, that wouldn't necessarily make it inherently moral or good.

[00:13:38]>> I don't know if you were aware of this, but you were giving an internal critique of my view. It sounds like the internal critique of my view failed if you can't find a contradiction in it.

[00:13:47]>> So, so now that you're granting that my view has no contradictions in it, let's go back to the gay topic. Why ought I do what God tells me?

[00:13:56]>> Why? Why ought you? So that that's because he is the good. Like his very being is light and he's good. God is love.

[00:14:04]>> To pro prove that God is the good.

[00:14:06]>> Yeah.

[00:14:08]>> Uh well in in the in the denial of God being the good, we would just have the void, right? You just be molecules in motion. Be molecules in motion, >> you know, anything would go. That would be really cool if I hadn't already argued for virtue ethics not a couple of seconds ago. That's not true.

[00:14:28]>> Yeah, but I but I don't >> I bet like that dialogue option probably works against subjectivists. But I mean it just kind of looks like you're going down like a dialogue tree if that was your response after the conversation that we just had.

[00:14:47]I mean, your your your argument for virtue ethics was just to say like consistency, but you know, philosophers don't agree, you know, like there's all sorts of different moral philosophies >> and they're incorrect. All the ones that disagree with me are wrong.

[00:15:01]>> But then you're just declaring yourself to be God, right? You're just you're God and everyone. Yeah. Yeah. You're you're >> When the dumb kid raises his hand and says 2 plus 2 is five, that doesn't dissuade me from the knowledge that 2 plus 2 is four. People can disagree with me and because morals are objective, I'm just going to say that they're wrong.

[00:15:22]>> Well, that's that's kind of that's shifting a bit. Like f first you're arguing for consistency. If we're arguing for consistency, then there can be multiple moral systems that are self-consistent. And by your own standard, you have to accept all my argument.

[00:15:34]>> You just, oh yeah, they're all self-consistent. They're all they all >> consistency is necessary, but not sufficient for a system to be the true moral system.

[00:15:44]necessary but not sufficient. So what would be the sufficient thing?

[00:15:47]>> Yeah. I mean if you want I can go through the argument for virtue ethics.

[00:15:50]So the argument goes like this. Uh everybody is in pursuit of the good life. Um if something is a necessary means to your end or sorry let me let me use the correct terminology. Um the good life is the ultimate end in everybody's pursuits. If something is an end that you pursue then you have a reason to take the actions that are necessary to achieve it. uh being virtuous is necessary to achieve the good life. Uh therefore, everybody ought be virtuous.

[00:16:20]>> Okay.

[00:16:22]So you you you're saying like everyone was in pursuit of the good life or >> corrects.

[00:16:28]>> Okay. Well, >> they're trying to be successful in the life that they live. Correct.

[00:16:32]>> Okay. I mean, but but what about like criminals? I mean there's people who kidnap and you know steal and >> do all those people are contradicting themselves but ultimately if you ask them like well why do you do this they're going to say well I do this to be successful in this field and if you ask them okay well why do you want to be successful in that field they'll say well I want to be successful in this field to you know be successful here uh so for example if you ask the bank robber why are you robbing the bank he's going to say well to be successful in terms of like the the wealth that I have um and if you ask, "Well, why do you want to be successful in terms of the the wealth you have?" He's going to say something about like, "Well, I want to be successful in the number of opportunities that I have." Um, and it just keeps on going further and further out until you've arrived at the entirety of the life itself. In other words, people are trying ultimately to live a successful life.

[00:17:25]>> Mhm. So, so if if if I if I try to be a bank robber, then I'm trying to live the good life. You're trying to be successful in some pursuit, but there's going to be a contradiction in your view.

[00:17:38]>> So, you haven't reflected enough on >> your life or the sorts of actions that you're taking and the sorts of effects that it's going to have on you.

[00:17:49]>> So, what would be like the contradiction for the the bank robber? Yeah, the contradiction for the bank robber is that they declare themselves as having a right to own property where while denying that right to other people but unable to actually mention like a specific distinction between them and others. So a agency or I don't know being like a valuer would both be sufficient for having a right to own all of that money and also insufficient for having that right.

[00:18:18]Mhm. Um, okay. So, I mean, what what what if they were to just come up with a system where they say that like, okay, like private property property is not necessary, you know, like communism is the way to go. You know, we just all need to >> then why do they want that property?

[00:18:38]I mean, you can't be like somebody who's like like robbing banks consistently trying to like acquire more wealth >> and then at the same time say like nobody should own anything. That would be an indict of your own system.

[00:18:53]>> Well, there's accelerationists. They they desire to take out the current system and replace it with something else.

[00:18:58]>> Sure. But then at that point, their ends actually don't require robbing the bank at all.

[00:19:05]>> Yeah. We'll have to see. Either they either they think people should be allowed to be in possession of that money or they don't. If they think people should be allowed to be in possession of that money, then they would have to attribute those same sorts of rights to to others, which means that there'd be no reason why they would be able to take this in any sort of consistent way.

[00:19:24]>> Okay. Well, you you said to me that morality is objective. I think in the beginning you said subjective and then later on you told me it's >> I always said that it's objective.

[00:19:34]>> Okay. Well, so if it's objective, it not it wouldn't be grounded in your mind or my mind. It would be >> it would be grounded in your stances is what it wouldn't be grounded in.

[00:19:43]>> Sure. It'd be grounded in ontology, right? Ontology is this the true nature of being, right?

[00:19:48]>> Yeah.

[00:19:48]>> Okay. So, what what is uh what is the nature of of being like is is being a mind? Is it not a mind?

[00:19:55]>> I'm a mathematical monist, but this is a huge pivot.

[00:19:59]Well, when you speak about um the ontology of good, the ontos, the being of good, >> this this would necessarily >> we're talking about the ontology of one thing, which means that we're talking about ontology simplic, you know, what's your account of Oh, wait. Sorry. Ask a Christian. Uh you're speaking of ontology, which presupposes a meta-ontology. What metontology do you hold to?

[00:20:23]>> Uh there's no there is no metantology, right?

[00:20:25]>> There's no metantology. Wait, so you take no stances as to the nature of being?

[00:20:30]>> No. Ontology is the study of being.

[00:20:32]Ontoloss is being. And being has has attributes, right? There's attributes.

[00:20:37]>> In virtue of what is a person committed to positing an entity as existing?

[00:20:43]>> Like what's your account of when it's rational to posit an entity as existing or non-existing? Because you know that's a metaethical or that's a metaantological question and you're talking about ontology which of course presupposes metaontology. So it's like totally valid to then [ __ ] like completely pivot to a different field.

[00:21:02]>> You're asking me within my worldview?

[00:21:04]>> Yeah, within your worldview. Uh what sort of characteristic does an entity need to satisfy for you to posit its existence?

[00:21:11]>> I sort of satisfy uh well I mean it would need to be upheld into existence by God, right? You know God would need to hold him into existence.

[00:21:22]>> Yeah, sure. So in virtue of what would I be committed to God's existence >> in in virtue of you know you being able to have knowledge right knowledge that you could not be wrong about so so absolute certain knowledge like absolute knowledge absolute truth that sort of thing >> sure how do I determine whether or not God has uh created an entity into existence >> within the Christian worldview or your worldview >> within your worldview.

[00:21:52]Oh, within within my worldview.

[00:21:53]>> Yeah.

[00:21:54]>> Uh yeah. So, so essentially, you know, God holds all things into existence and the way that you would come to know things uh is through relationship with God, right? Like God would reveal to you that your your your senses perceive that which is actual, right? That's a that's a real dog, real cat, real person. God reveals to you.

[00:22:14]>> Uh so is there an has God revealed to you that there's an even number of particles in the universe or an odd number?

[00:22:21]uh God doesn't reveal everything exhaustively, you know, to me or you.

[00:22:24]>> Well, then how do I know? How can I posit the existence of anything then if I don't know if there's an even or an odd number of particles? Like that's okay. This is like the level of like ridiculousness that like the pivot that you tried to do earlier is by the way like going from we're talking about the ontology of goodness. Therefore, you know, what's your what's your entire like metaphysics? Like that's that's like a ridiculous pivot.

[00:22:51]Um, no, no, that wasn't that wasn't my my question. My basically what what I was trying to address. So, in if we're doing an internal critique of your worldview, the the weakness of your worldview is that is that you don't have access to the true nature of being, right? You don't have access to ontos, right? Being ontology. So, in in the unbelieving worldview, ontology is shrouded in ultimate mystery, right? It it could be that in your worldview that there is this great demon that's over all everybody and he's just making you see things, hear things, feel things, and touch things that aren't there or or we could all be >> would God be doing that for you to you on your world view?

[00:23:32]>> Uh no, that would God is always truth revealing. That would not be >> And how do you know how do you know that God's always truth revealing?

[00:23:38]>> Because because we have a direct relationship with God, right? God has written his law in your heart.

[00:23:42]>> Sure. So you know that God's telling the truth because he told you that he's telling the truth.

[00:23:46]Yeah, that's that's the nature.

[00:23:48]>> And how do you know that that wasn't a lie?

[00:23:50]>> Uh because because we have a relationship with God, right? There's nothing wrong.

[00:23:54]>> You're saying you know that God wouldn't lie to you because you know God told you he wouldn't lie to you and God wouldn't lie to you.

[00:24:00]>> That's circular.

[00:24:01]>> Well, every worldview when it comes to the like to ontology, right, to to this ultimate level uh is is circular. Every worldview has this and there's vicious and virtuous circularity. uh when it comes to you know the Christian God that would be virtuous right that would be like when it comes to ontology that would be that would be virtuous.

[00:24:22]>> Sure. So could you give me a clear distinction between vicious and virtuous circularity?

[00:24:29]>> Uh so a distinction between vicious and virtuous >> Yeah. precepts use these these terms a lot but I've never gotten a clear definition of them.

[00:24:40]So like uh yeah, let me uh like I guess I guess my my current view I might might need to like pull out some more but basically my current view would be that a vicious circularity would be within creation. Uh if I'm I guess if I'm attempting to reason from axioms to go and ground my position. So axioms would be like base level assumptions without external verification. Whereas I would view virtuous would be grounded in uh ontology and the attributes of ontology grounding the necessary preconditions of human intelligibility.

[00:25:16]>> Uh sure. Wait, so then uh under your definition of vicious circularity, why is vicious circularity bad?

[00:25:24]>> That's reasoning from axioms, right?

[00:25:26]Axioms are base level assumptions without external verification.

[00:25:29]>> Sure. And why is that bad? Because you do the same thing with God.

[00:25:32]>> No, no, ontology is not an assumption, right? ontos is not assumption like what would you agree >> but your assumption your assumption is that God is onto and that God is not lying to you how do you justify the assumption that God is not lying to you without referring to the assumption that God is not lying to you >> I don't grant that God is not lying to you if your if your argument revolves around you presupposing the conclusion I'm just going to point out that that's what you're doing >> well every every question like it needs to be within a worldview We're either within the Christian worldview or the unbelieving worldview, right? And when you're doing an internal critique of a of of a worldview, let's say for example, the Christian worldview, the the onto ontology is a given, right?

[00:26:17]Ontology and the attributes of ontology is a given. Just like when I'm doing internal critique of your worldview, oh >> the the the ontology of the unbelieving worldview and it attributes are a given.

[00:26:27]>> Yeah. Then I'll believe in the the um reliable sense providing wave function.

[00:26:31]That's the grounding of being is the the wave function that has the property uh just baked into it of making your senses generally reliable.

[00:26:43]>> The the the wave Okay. So is is this is this wave function a mind?

[00:26:48]>> Nope.

[00:26:50]>> Okay. And uh is it uh personal?

[00:26:53]>> Nope.

[00:26:54]Okay. And is it is it revvelatory? I don't know what by revvelatory you mean what >> like it it gives rise to the senses that are generally reliable. So if that constitutes revelatory then yeah >> but but here but here here's the thing right so you said you said it's not a mind it's not personal >> um so and and this is in ontology right this is the wave function is in ontology the true nature of being so how like what what what is your epistemology that allows you to have access >> yeah I'm a reliableist you know the wave function just you know has the property of giving uh reliable uh sense data. So I just have reliable sense data. You know, it's just baked into the ontology. When you do an internal critique, you need to grant me whatever wild assumption I have about the foundation of being.

[00:27:49]>> Yeah. But but but ontology is not about wild assumptions. I mean that's not not necessary. You say you say it's not a mind. You say that it's not personal. So then what would make this this thing uh want basically reach out to you or reach out to me and and cause us to know >> that doesn't reach out to us.

[00:28:11]>> Gave rise to senses that are generally reliable.

[00:28:14]>> Okay. So then then we wouldn't have access access to to it. We wouldn't have access.

[00:28:20]>> You don't think that we can >> you don't think that we can have access to the wave function with our generally reliable senses?

[00:28:28]Well, you you should you should read you should study Emanuel Khan, right? He's an unbeliever, but he's a philosopher.

[00:28:34]And >> it's not true. Emanuel Khan was a Christian.

[00:28:38]>> No, he's not he's not he's not a Christian. I mean, he believes in God, but he's not not a Christian though. But basically, so with with regard to Emanuel Khan, so when he was looking at the apple, like let's say if you to look at a red apple, so some light hits the apple and some of it reflects into your eyes. Your eyes converts that to electrical signals. It goes to your brain that makes a model of the apple.

[00:28:57]So Kant would make a distinction between the phenomena and the numina. So he would say that the model in your mind is the phenomena and the numina would be the apple like the object in and of itself.

[00:29:07]>> So so you you might say okay there's an apple the apple is there but then you know basically K would say that you don't have access to the the true nature of of whatever is there. Are you saying >> well what's his argument for that?

[00:29:22]Uh well he he he he uses transcendentals and he >> but no what's his argument that like the true nature of it is inaccessible.

[00:29:31]>> Uh well he he was he was reviewing David Hume and the r he reviewed empiric empiricism and rationalism and he was critiquing the errors uh in both of them. And so basically his his question is like what what is the necessary preconditions for you to have knowledge?

[00:29:49]uh what's what's the necessary preconditions for all >> doesn't sound like much of an argument >> we take for granted >> uh >> I was asking like what what sort of argument did he put forward >> for the conclusion that you can't have access to the true nature of being like why would I grant something like indirect realism instead of just holding to something like direct realism >> so you're saying uh like that sort of thing. Well, I mean >> I think that there are circumstances where our sense data gives us like direct access to the external world.

[00:30:31]>> Okay. So, you think there are some circumstances that give you direct access to actual state affairs? All right. So, I mean um would you affirm that you have a soul?

[00:30:40]>> By soul you mean what? I'm probably not, but let's get clear. By soul, you mean what?

[00:30:45]>> Sure. like like a like like an immaterial will that uh allows you to choose between an apple and orange without uh being influenced by like like physics like that.

[00:30:56]>> No.

[00:30:58]>> Okay. So in that case like you know you and me would just be like molecules in motion your your brain would just be chemicals and electrons reacting.

[00:31:07]>> Yeah. So, so by by what standard would you uh evaluate and know that your your brain is working correctly like it's getting?

[00:31:17]>> Yeah, because I've I've begged the question three steps ago when I said that the ultimate foundation for being is the wave function with the property of giving you reliable sense data. So, you know, you can just look to my my foundational being. It just gives me reliable sense data. It has that property. See, I I put it in there.

[00:31:36]>> Okay. Okay. But how how how do you know this wave function is circular?

[00:31:39]>> Yeah. All all world views are circular and my mine is is virtuously circular.

[00:31:44]>> I know it's this is different. It's different in the Christian worldview.

[00:31:48]>> It's different.

[00:31:49]>> No, it's different. In the Christian worldview, God wants a relationship with you. And God, he's all powerful. You cannot fail. And he establishes this relationship with you. So, we're dealing with a person, an agent with will, desires, and action. In your worldview, you you said impersonal, right?

[00:32:09]>> You have a wave function that's disposed to giving you reliable sense data.

[00:32:16]>> How how do you know that? How do you how do you get it?

[00:32:18]>> Yeah. I I arrive at that conclusion with my reliable sense data. And before you say it's circular, it's a virtuous circle, uh not a vicious circle.

[00:32:29]>> Well, what I'm trying to explain to you the difference, right? So there's a difference between God reaching out to you and you reaching out to God, right?

[00:32:38]God reaching out to you like good, right? That you you can know things like everything is grounded.

[00:32:44]>> You you rejecting that and saying, "Oh, >> that's like your circular assumption is that God isn't lying to you.

[00:32:49]>> That's your unjustified assumption."

[00:32:53]>> Yeah. You you rejecting that and you just saying, "Okay, I'm going to start with myself, right? Autonomous reasoning separate from God. Okay, I'm going to start with myself and then reach out to to the true nature of being. Uh this will never allow you and me to have access to the true nature of being for that >> no matter uh no matter what philosophy you try to go with no matter what >> the argument for that.

[00:33:15]So given that onto being or ontology is not personal and revelatory then uh you know we we wouldn't be able to have access to it. I mean like >> that certainly is the conclusion. Yeah.

[00:33:33]>> But why would I think that that's true?

[00:33:39]>> Yeah. Truth truth would be grounded ontology. Like on onto being would be truth, right? Truth is that which comports with the actual state of affairs.

[00:33:46]>> Okay. But why why does it need to be personal and revelatory?

[00:33:56]>> Cuz we need we need to have it needs it needs to reach out and reveal himself to you or reveal himself to me, right?

[00:34:03]>> So it needs to be revely because he needs to reveal himself to you. This feels circular or at the very least uninformative.

[00:34:12]Well, I mean, kind of is what it is, right? When when you reject that, um, you're going to be reasoning from axioms, right? So, so do do you you affirm that you reason from axioms?

[00:34:22]>> Uh, yeah, in some sense, the the starting point I'm um I'm a foundationalist about epistemology. I think that there are like certain indispensable pieces of epistemic um I don't know like knowledge maybe or like epistemic uh like justification things that in the act of denying would presuppose which means that they're literally inescapable things like logic for example to reject logic you would need to presuppose that some things are not the case which would then presuppose logic um in order to reject something like uh seemings in the absence of defeaters you need to say that it doesn't seem like that's true. Um, so all of these things are going to be buying you right back into the very thing that you're rejecting.

[00:35:11]>> And so I guess with foundationalism, right, you know, there there's different foundationalist philosophers, you know, like there's there's different guys and they they don't all agree on the same exact uh foundations or starting points.

[00:35:24]Like, you know, different guys have different starting points. So I mean why why would we affirm that a foundationalism is true if the foundationalist philosophers don't even agree on okay this is the foundation you like there there's disagreement amongst them why >> gosh you know how could we possibly agree how could we possibly arrive at the conclusion that 2+ 2 is four when the dumb kid raises his hand in the back of the classroom and says 2+ 2 is five you know with all this disagreement going around I have no idea how we could possibly agree on something like this.

[00:36:01]>> And and I guess my my other question or thing is with foundationalism is it kind of tends to like leave you trapped in your mind or leave me trapped in my mind, right? Because you're kind of establishing yourself as the foundation for like all that is. And >> no, it's an epistemic view. It's not a metaphysical view.

[00:36:23]Well, it still still relates to how do you have access to ontology to the true nature of being? I mean, epistemology relates to how do you have access to the true nature of being.

[00:36:34]>> Well, true nature of being or just like the external world. Maybe you include that in the true nature of being, but yeah.

[00:36:42]>> Yeah.

[00:36:43]>> So, I agree with that. But I think that you can arrive at like a lot of I don't know like a prior truths via logic which is self-defeating to deny. I also think that one feature that's prevalent in a lot of foundationalism is that you can really just stack a lot of different foundational views on top of each other.

[00:36:59]You could, for example, hold that logic is true because it's self-defeating to deny and then you could simultaneously hold something like phenomenal conservatism uh because it's self-defeating to deny. You can kind of just go down the line and hold to all these views and say, "Well, it's self-defeating to deny it.

[00:37:22]Okay. So, you're arguing selfdeing to deny. Um, >> yeah.

[00:37:27]>> I mean, I I don't know. Like I mean, like may who is to say if something is self-defeating, therefore it's not true.

[00:37:33]I mean, there's, you know, there there's people in your your camp, the unbelieving camp, who are trivial trivialists and, you know, all sorts of >> name too.

[00:37:41]>> Yeah.

[00:37:43]>> I mean, I I spoke to some some unbelievers.

[00:37:47]>> Yeah. And there's there's you know, some Christians who are trivialists, you know, I spoke to some.

[00:37:53]>> Okay. But but anyway, either either way, uh I I think just just to say that, you know, without these things, you know, you couldn't reason or couldn't operate or couldn't make sense of the world doesn't necessitate that the actual state of affairs has to be, you know, rational, sensible, accessible. Um you you would need to have you know relationship but a relationship with God to say those sorts of things and that relationship goes from God to you know theonmous God's the foundation it doesn't go from you independently uh reaching out to God you know by by your own strength and power right it's >> it's the other way around >> yeah I mean I I understand that certainly is your conclusion maybe I can ask you a question about God um do you think God has knowledge >> uh knowledge is God revealing himself to you revealing things to himself to you, revealing himself to me.

[00:38:50]>> But does God have knowledge?

[00:38:54]>> Saying does God have knowledge? Uh like God's God's knowledge is different from our knowledge. Like there's archetypical and >> so I have I know things that God doesn't.

[00:39:05]>> Knowledge.

[00:39:07]No. No. I would I wouldn't say you know things that God doesn't.

[00:39:10]>> So my knowledge then is subsumed by God.

[00:39:13]So God must have the knowledge that I have.

[00:39:20]Like God God knows the true truth, right? God is truth and he knows all true things and we think God's thoughts after him. Like we we uh he's like the first interpreter, right? So there's a there's archypical and ectypical knowledge and >> uh I mean you know Van Vanill he he writes about this. I recommend you know read Van Hill. He he speaks about this and Greg Bonson as well. Mhm. But uh so >> yeah, >> when you say that God knows things, what do you mean when you say that God knows things?

[00:39:54]>> God knows things.

[00:39:55]>> Yeah. Like what would be your account of knowledge for God's knowledge?

[00:40:00]>> Well, so yeah, God God is truth and he knows the actual >> circular >> of >> your account of knowledge includes the word know.

[00:40:15]you. No, you asked me what does God know, right? You're saying what is >> what's your account of God's knowledge is what I asked.

[00:40:26]>> It would be like God God is truth and he has access or he grounds all things as they are, right? He he is that which is the case.

[00:40:36]>> I'm asking when you say that God knows something.

[00:40:38]>> God revealed himself to Moses. Does God know that 2+ 2 is four?

[00:40:48]>> I believe he would ground like he would ground that 2 plus 2= 4 know that 2 plus 2 is four >> on how on how God grounds uh the laws of logic.

[00:40:58]>> Uh >> but does he know that 2 plus 2 is four?

[00:41:01]>> Yeah. Like he he would know that 2 plus 2als 4. When you say that God knows that 2 plus 2 is four, what does it mean to say that he knows it?

[00:41:12]Yeah. So with with regards to God, right, God is truth and he would ground 2 plus 2= 4. He would be grounding the laws of logic and and all these other sorts of things.

[00:41:24]>> You think what it means to know something is to ground it.

[00:41:27]>> Is that correct?

[00:41:28]>> Well, well, there there's there's a distinction or there's a distinction between God's knowledge and your knowledge, right? God's knowledge.

[00:41:34]>> Does God have my knowledge?

[00:41:36]>> It's not it's not it's not it's not the same, right? Right. So you're you're trying you're you're kind of going >> God have my knowledge.

[00:41:42]>> You're going the the wrong direction.

[00:41:43]>> Is my knowledge included in God's knowledge?

[00:41:46]>> Sama. Yeah. If you're curious if you're curious about this Ian, right? Check out Van Hill. Check out great bonds. Very great books. Very great videos. I'm going to I'm going to Yeah, I guess. Oh, he's he's going to go and pull up going to go pull up some books or something.

[00:42:01]>> A few moments later.

[00:42:04]>> Richard Dawkins. You've never heard of Richard Dawkins?

[00:42:06]>> Dawkins. Never heard of Richard Dawkins.

[00:42:09]Yes. I know who Richard Dawkins.

[00:42:10]>> Richard Dawkins.

[00:42:11]>> You've never heard of Richard Dawkins?

[00:42:12]Yeah. Richard Dawkins. You said >> I said I did. You said Dawkins.

[00:42:15]>> That there is no good, there is no evil, but there's nothing but blind pitiles indifference.

[00:42:21]>> Gosh, sorry. I'm back. Uh, sorry. Sorry.

[00:42:23]Sorry, chat. Uh, yeah. I have my I found the defense of the faith and then I have Bonsen's what is it? Like always ready.

[00:42:32]>> Yes. Yes.

[00:42:33]>> Yeah. I've read excerpts of both of them. I don't find either of them compelling. Uh, their entire view is like gibberish. Um, there's like an easy question that I could ask you. You think God is truth? If God didn't exist, would it be true that God didn't exist?

[00:42:50]>> Uh, no.

[00:42:51]>> It wouldn't be true that God didn't exist if God didn't exist.

[00:42:55]>> You don't think that A implies A?

[00:42:59]>> You're You're trying to look >> You don't think that You reject that A implies A. Is that correct?

[00:43:05]>> God God is truth, right? God is truth.

[00:43:08]And when you're trying to say that truth can exist without God, that's saying that A can exist without A.

[00:43:15]>> You're literally saying that A does not imply A.

[00:43:19]>> No, that's what you're saying.

[00:43:20]>> No, that's that's literally what you're saying. You're denying that if God is or if God didn't exist that it would be true that God didn't exist. You don't think that it would be true that God didn't exist if God didn't exist? You're It's like, okay, if if um if my cat didn't exist, then it would be true that my cat doesn't exist.

[00:43:40]You know, if if the number three didn't exist, then it would be true that the number three didn't exist. It doesn't matter that the number three has like necessary existence.

[00:43:49]In the same way, you probably want to say like God is necessary existence that couldn't possibly happen. It's like gibberish, right? It's I don't know. The precept position is just a gibberish position.

[00:44:01]I mean I mean that's that's that's just a cate a huge category error like >> what's category what's the thing that I'm miscatategorizing >> like there's there's a creator creation distinction and cat cats cats are contingent they're um limited finite temporal uh whereas god yeah he's he's the ground of all being and he is truth himself like like god is truth I'm starting to suspect that you don't know what a category error is.

[00:44:33]>> A equals A, right? God equals truth.

[00:44:35]Like literally, >> you deny that A implies A.

[00:44:38]>> Literally, God literally equals truth.

[00:44:41]>> You deny that A implies A, though.

[00:44:43]>> No, that's what you do. You you deny that.

[00:44:45]>> Sorry. Wait. So, you you do do you deny or do you affirm the statement that if God didn't exist that it would be true that God doesn't exist?

[00:44:54]>> Uh, yeah. Like, I deny that statement. I mean, of course. You deny that a implies it's true that a >> truth.

[00:45:04]>> You don't think that exists for something >> you you need to demonstrate that truth can exist without the can because if God didn't exist then it would be true that God didn't exist.

[00:45:16]>> That's like trivial even.

[00:45:18]>> What's the ground? What's the ground by way for anybody considering like converting to Christianity?

[00:45:24]This is what you have to look forward to. You wouldn't be able to make any claims like you wouldn't you literally would be like this guy. You wouldn't be able to affirm that a implies a >> what's the grounds of possibility and possibility? What's the ground?

[00:45:34]>> The grounds of possibility.

[00:45:36]>> I'm a necessitarian, big dog.

[00:45:39]>> Okay. Can you explain that?

[00:45:41]>> Yeah. I think that everything that is is necessary. I don't think that contingencies exist.

[00:45:47]>> You believe everything that is is necessary. Contingency exists. So So what? So there's no like I don't know there's no cause and effect or something or >> there is cause and effect. It's just all necessary.

[00:46:03]>> Well, how I guess what what what links um I guess cause and effect what what what links it or how how do you know that there's this link between cause and effect?

[00:46:14]>> Sure. So cause and effect comes down to things transferring energy at a specific world line.

[00:46:22]So when you have like world lines that intersect, there can be transferences of energy. So for example, you know, when the the world line for the lighter intersects with like the the world line or at least like touches on the world line for the candle and then there's like the specific chemical reaction that happens which also is reducible to like interactions between world lines. Um that explains fully why the candle lights.

[00:46:51]>> Okay. And and is this a uh something that you arrive at through like induction or like how how would you >> Yeah, you'd arrive at something like that through induction.

[00:47:03]>> Okay. So yeah, like I mean in induction would be going from the specific to the general. Um and and all all conclusions of of induction are probabilistic. You know, they're they're not certain.

[00:47:17]>> So So in that in that case, your conclusion that there are links in in cause and effect >> is probabilistic and uncertain. So so in your own worldview, you're uncertain that causality like there is a cause and effect. Like there is this link between cause and effect.

[00:47:32]>> Well, I'm like 99.999999999% certain. So I don't like I don't really care. I don't getting like any additional point like I don't know why I would want that. There's no difference between well so the only thing that would be different if I were certain is that I would be wrong. You know I'd be unjustified in my belief in the same way that you're unjustified in your belief that God isn't lying to you. I would be unjustified in my belief of 100% certainty in something that is probabilistic.

[00:48:03]>> Has have your ears ever misheard?

[00:48:07]>> Uh sure.

[00:48:08]>> Yeah. Why would God give you ears that misar?

[00:48:12]>> Well, God grounds that I have access to the actual state of affairs.

[00:48:17]>> But you don't you don't have access to the actual state of affairs when you mishar.

[00:48:21]>> Yeah. Miss misering is hearing like so, for example.

[00:48:24]>> Yeah. Why would God give you access why would God give you ears that don't have access to what's actually going on?

[00:48:31]>> Okay. Well, well, here here here's an example, right? Here's an example of of mis misering.

[00:48:36]>> Mhm. Um, but let's say maybe you hear like a train, like maybe the wheels of a train, and then you think it's it's some type of animal. You think, "Oh, like there's this crazy creature in the woods."

[00:48:51]>> That's not a miser. That's like a misreason. So, for example, um you know, you you misheard my definition of what was it? I think like earlier you claimed that I I said that ethics were subjective and then I changed it to ethics being objective when in fact the entire time I affirmed that ethics were objective you misheard the words that I said. Why would God give you ears that misar the words that I say?

[00:49:16]>> Uh I mean I I don't think I misheard I mean >> do you want to check the replay? Wait, what if we check the replay and then we can see how many more times consecutively you can miss here?

[00:49:27]>> Sure. Yeah. Go go go go right to the start like the very beginning of the conversation.

[00:49:30]>> Yep. Happy to >> be turned on by >> love. Uh it would >> um gosh sorry. Okay. Um, so you're saying that they're redefining, but like how could you possibly explain that on your view?

[00:49:57]>> And someone else's needs trying to get them to worship you or worship. So, so love would be God himself, his very being, his very nature, his very essence.

[00:50:08]>> Okay. Wait. So, the asexual gay couple, like the like the gay romantic relationship, what need are they disregarding in favor of their desires?

[00:50:21]uh they're disregarding the other person's need to be close to God, right?

[00:50:26]Their heavenly father.

[00:50:28]>> Could we go to the start if Sure. Why?

[00:50:31]We're just trying to find this one specific section.

[00:50:34]>> Yeah. Like I I believe you said that morality was subjective like right right at the jump. So basically what what happened was I asked you have you ever done anything wrong? And then you you said yes. And then I was asking you know like by by what standard?

[00:50:47]>> Yeah. No this is Yeah. Yeah. This is all now. This is all after the point that we're at right now.

[00:50:53]>> I think it's like right at the start.

[00:50:55]>> I know. I guess I have no reason to think, well, this is like pretty close to the start. But yeah, that God even exists. I have no reason to think that people's lives would be made better if they like started pretending that he did. Um, you know, if that's our greatest need, it seems like God would give everyone a religious experience because, you know, if God loves us all deeply in order to live a good life, we all need to have some sort of religious experience to find God absent like the evidence because, you know, it's not obvious and it just seems like God should give everyone a religious experience such that everybody has enough evidence to fulfill their needs.

[00:51:15]>> Sure. So, I mean, have you ever done anything wrong in your life? Uh Ian, >> yeah.

[00:51:20]>> Okay. Yeah. You've done bad things. I've done bad things. The Bible says, "For all have sinned, they have fallen short of the glory of God." So when you do something bad, do you do it against God?

[00:51:29]Right. Who is holy, who is righteous, who is pure? No. When you do something bad.

[00:51:35]So So then, okay. So, so then do you do something bad against a moral standard that emanates from your mind?

[00:51:40]>> No. No, I don't think so. I'm a moral realist.

[00:51:44]>> So from the very start, I say, "No, I'm a moral realist.

[00:51:50]Well, a moral a moral realist. I mean, I I mean, I I I don't think that's going to be like objective morality still. I don't think that's objective.

[00:52:01]>> What do you think?

[00:52:02]>> You don't think moral realism is okay, then you're just confused on the terms.

[00:52:06]>> If you don't think moral realism is when morality is objective, then you simply haven't engaged with or read the literature >> or Or I guess like how how would you be saying that moral realism is objective?

[00:52:22]I mean, how how would you be saying that?

[00:52:25]>> That's just what the term means. Yeah.

[00:52:27]Okay. Wait, let me uh because I guess like this is the other problem with precepts is that they don't really read anything, which is why they make like basic like philosophy errors. But here you go. Moral realism, no no loaded terms, no nothing like that. Moral realism is the metaethical view that objective moral truths exist. It's that's literally just what the term means.

[00:52:52]>> Okay. So, you're saying that objective?

[00:52:56]Wait.

[00:52:56]>> Well, wait. So, can you just acknowledge that you misheard what I said?

[00:53:02]>> Well, I I think I think you're trying to ground it. I mean, you're still not grounding it in ontology or like >> Well, but what I'm what I'm asking basically is why would God give you ears that mishar?

[00:53:16]If God wants your senses to be reliable and give you access to the outside world, then why is it the case that sometimes they mishar?

[00:53:29]>> I mean, I think that's more of like a misunderstanding.

[00:53:32]Like I don't think that's like a misering because like I I heard the words that you said but we just didn't completely agree on what's the the meaning or the definition of those words.

[00:53:43]>> Okay. I mean have you ever misheard something like you thought somebody said one thing but they actually said like a totally different thing? Has that ever happened?

[00:53:55]>> Uh yeah.

[00:53:56]>> Yeah. How would you explain an interaction like that?

[00:54:04]Well, I mean, God gives you and me ears, uh, but we're able to direct our attention and our focus, uh, in different ways. So, even though the auditory input has entered our brain and been translating to electrical signals, uh, we have prioritized um, you know, our brain activity elsewhere. Thus, it has been placed as a background like a background task rather than like a like a front like a front one.

[00:54:35]>> Have you ever misheard something even while you were paying attention to it?

[00:54:40]Like somebody was somebody said something and then you thought they said one thing, you were paying attention but then for whatever reason you just totally misheard them.

[00:54:56]Um, so someone saying to pay attention that misheard >> because that's happened to me. That's happened to everyone. In fact, >> I mean, sure, sure.

[00:55:13]>> Yeah, sure. Why would God give you senses that misar?

[00:55:20]If God wants you to always have an accurate reading of the world around you, why wouldn't God make it such that your ears don't mishar?

[00:55:31]>> Well, I mean, we we need to like break down, you know, what's what's the circumstances that that causes, you know, that sort of thing, you know? Is it is it inebriation? you know, is it maybe lots of background noise? Is it um I don't know, lack lack of sleep or something? Or I don't know. Like we got to break down every single variable and look at the whole thing.

[00:55:58]>> You don't think that there's going to be a situation where it's like a totally normal situation and that your ears just mishar.

[00:56:11]I mean, I I don't really I don't really Yeah, I don't I don't I don't get it. I don't get it.

[00:56:16]>> You don't think that that exists?

[00:56:21]>> Yeah. I don't I don't know. I don't get it. But anyway, so um yeah, so yeah, it was good good chatting with you again.

[00:56:27]>> Uh thanks so much for coming on up.

[00:56:29]>> Sure.

[00:56:30]>> Holy Okay, flashback, >> folks. Very great videos. I'm going to I'm going to Yeah, I guess. Oh, he's he's gonna go and pull up he's gonna go pull up some books or something.

[00:56:43]Um, but was about to go and head on out.

[00:56:53]Okay.

[00:56:54]Well, I guess I guess in the meantime in the meantime, repent and accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior, right? Jesus is, you know, God is good. Uh, atheism is irrational.

[00:57:05]Cannot be grounded.

[00:57:07]You've been blown out on this debate. I don't know why you're preaching to anybody in here. No, >> I I don't see any blowing out. I mean, if you >> I mean, you're not going to see that, but I mean, everybody else has seen that you haven't been able to substantiate a single point. In fact, all you all you led to was that your worldview is your worldview circular.

[00:57:26]>> I'm pretty sure you weren't following me. I'm pretty sure you weren't following the whole entire conversation, but >> I wasn't following the entire So, here here's a question.

[00:57:33]>> But your world view is viciously circular. So we we can ask you the same No, it's not.

[00:57:39]>> Yeah, I already I already explained the whole thing. But we can ask you the same exact question that we asked uh Ian, right? So have have you ever done anything wrong in your life?

[00:57:51]>> Why would I go down the same dialogue tree with you?

[00:57:53]>> Yeah, because Okay. Well, well, yeah, cuz you can't answer it, right? So there's there's no reason to >> No, I can I can answer it. It just when I just watched Ian dog walk you, there's no point in me talking to you.

[00:58:07]>> You're you're you're fanirling. I mean, that's that's acceptable, but >> Oh, yeah. For sure. Absolutely. Ian like dog would would dog walk anybody in my vicinity much better than me. much more philosophically involved.

[00:58:22]Seems like you're upset that you got specifically on every single subject that you brought up here and now you're trying to backtrack and you're trying to talk about Emanuel K basic philosophers to Ian as if you know Ian but Ian is more wellversed in philosophy than >> growling.

[00:58:39]What is epistology?

[00:58:40]>> What's wrong with me? What's wrong with you?

[00:58:41]>> What is epistemology?

[00:58:43]You're just talking. You're talking to talk. You're not you're not trying to be substantive. All right. All right. So, what what is it about?

[00:58:50]>> Neither are you and neither are you.

[00:58:51]Look look.

[00:58:52]>> All you're doing is you're saying you're saying you're saying things without without actually you're saying you're saying you're saying you're saying things without actually tracking you're saying things without actually tracking the conversation. And and the the thing the thing is it's it's important >> it's important to stand for the truth right to love God to stand for that which is viciously circul and pure. Your worldview is vicious and secular. I think I think I'll take the position that's not that.

[00:59:21]>> I'm glad you can parrot you can parrot phrases without understanding the the argument. I'm glad you can parrot phrases.

[00:59:28]>> You don't even understand your argument.

[00:59:31]>> You don't even understand your argument.

[00:59:34]>> Just like you said, you you don't want to debate with me, right? So maybe what would be the interest dog pipe down a little bit. You don't you don't want to debate me, right? You you know you'd be >> I don't need to debate you. You just got dog walked. You know, you'd be asking.

[00:59:49]>> You just got dogwalked. I don't need to debate you. You lost the debate.

[00:59:53]>> Demonstrate. It's embarrassing.

[00:59:55]>> Atheism. Ask a Christian. Nobody should be asking you anything in atheism. They teach people. We're all just like molecules in motion. Just molecules in motion.

[01:00:05]>> If we're all just molecules in motion, they could not even >> How can you ground morality, right? How can you ground morality if we're all just molecules in motion? You you literally didn't even have a reputation.

[01:00:13]>> If you look If you look at Richard, >> you didn't have a reputation to anything that he said. Not not a single thing that Ian said. Ian the the little puppy is muting me. Woof woof puppy. Woof woof. But yeah, so basically Richard Dawkins Richard Dawkins.

[01:00:29]>> Yeah, I'm talking to to people who might be able to the argument.

[01:00:33]>> Richard Dawkins.

[01:00:33]>> Is he docking a boat?

[01:00:36]>> Is he docking a boat?

[01:00:37]>> Uh he dockings.

[01:00:39]>> Richard Dawkins. You've never heard of Richard Dawkins?

[01:00:41]>> Dawkins. Dawkins.

[01:00:42]>> Never heard of Richard Dawkins.

[01:00:43]>> Richard Dawkins. Yes. I know who Richard Dawkins.

[01:00:45]>> Richard Dawkins. You've never heard of Richard Dawkins? Yeah. Richard Dawkins.

[01:00:48]He said >> and a flashback.