Debating God's existence [4/30/2026]

本站添加: 2026-05-07

[00:00:00]that.

[00:00:02]Hey, what's up, Blue? Great to see you.

[00:00:06]Great to see you. Great to see you.

[00:00:09]Um, how's it going everyone? I hope everyone had a great day.

[00:00:17]Um, I want to talk to Dr. Blitz about time. When I see that scumbag Dr. Blitz, I'm going to have a discussion with him about time.

[00:00:29]Um I don't know there seems to be a contradiction.

[00:00:35]There seems to be like a contradiction in uh William Lane Craig's model of creation. So William Lane Craig thinks that God is atmporal and then he becomes temporal as he creates things. But then I think he's also a relationist about time. Uh that's a catastrophic problem for William Lane Craig. uh because relationism holds that time just is the relation between various objects that have the capacity to change you know so for example you don't want to say like time is um I don't know let's say let's say I throw the ball across the room there's the the moment where the ball's in my hand and the moment where the ball's across the room you know what the relationist about time wants to say is that time just is that that relation there there's like a like a separation between these these two moments and then that's what time is. Um it's like a you might want to say that it is like the ontology of like a family tree. Um but I suspect that there's an incompatibility here between being a relationist about time and then holding to a theory and thinking that there's like creation from a moment where God exists without anything else.

[00:01:48]Uh because so in order to have the first moment of time, it would need to be relational. So it would need to stand in like a temporal relation with like some other moment of time, but that would imply that there's other moments of time at the first moment of time, you know? Surely it can't be like the moment before that because then you have time before time. So I don't know.

[00:02:10]I guess I I think Dr. Blitz would have some thoughts about that. So, we'll see if that scumbag rears his head.

[00:02:26]I think it also might play into the the Hardle Hawking state. Um there's like a you know alleged alleged metaphile Stephen Hawking had like a proposal for a cosmological model where the time begins to exist after not existing or like existing in like imaginary time. Um and I think that this sort of argument would work against something like that as well. So I don't know makes me wonder. But anyway, I don't know why the [ __ ] my ear is so red.

[00:03:04]Let me um I'm going to go check my thermostat.

[00:03:24]If you're on Tik Tok, don't forget to tap the crap out of that screen and send your heart me and then send a go popular. Each one of those is one coin and they help a ton to get the stream out to the algorithm.

[00:03:37]>> Uh, Frankly Frank says that he got here before the notification.

[00:03:41]I have horrible news for you, Frankly Frank.

[00:03:45]Anyway, hey, if you're in that guest request box, if you disagree, if you think that God is real, make sure that you're 18 or older, make sure that you believe in the God of the Bible, the Torah, or the Quran. I also have some reason. I also ask that you have some reason to think that God exists. If you don't have some reason to think that God exists, don't request to join. And with that, we'll go to the very first guest.

[00:04:15]Hey, what up, bro? We We talked before.

[00:04:18]>> Okay. Yeah. How old are you?

[00:04:21]>> I'm 34, brother.

[00:04:22]>> Yeah. And what religion?

[00:04:25]>> Christian.

[00:04:25]>> Okay. What makes you think God exists?

[00:04:28]>> It doesn't I don't think he exists. I know he exists. There's a difference between thinking and knowing.

[00:04:34]>> I agree. There's a difference between thinking and knowing. Uh, however, all forms of knowing something are going to be a form of thinking it. In order for something to to be known by you, you would need to think it. So, for example, if I if I don't think that 2 plus 2 is four, if that's not one of the things that I believe, I I certainly can't know that 2 plus 2 is four. All it means to believe something is just that you affirm it to be true.

[00:04:59]>> Okay. I would I would agree with you on that. That would be a fact, right? Four 2 plus two is four. That's a fact.

[00:05:06]>> It's a what?

[00:05:08]>> That's a fact. That's That's true.

[00:05:10]>> A fact. Sure.

[00:05:12]>> A fact.

[00:05:13]>> Okay. Yeah.

[00:05:14]>> But I don't I don't see your analogy where it lines up that God doesn't exist.

[00:05:20]>> Wait, sorry. I'm asking you for what reason would I think that God does exist?

[00:05:26]>> So, were you ever a Christian?

[00:05:29]>> I'm not sure the relevance of that. I'm just asking like what's the evidence that God exists? Well, I'm going somewhere with this. So, >> yeah, I was wondering >> God >> having having God in your life, you know, you don't live a perfect life, but compared to him not in your life, >> I just think life is chaos.

[00:05:49]>> Okay. And that like you like you use that analogy 2 plus two like God plus in my life is a better life for me >> in my life cuz I know for a fact >> that it is true. His word is true.

[00:06:05]>> How do you know that for a fact? What makes you know that?

[00:06:07]>> Cuz I know. I just know.

[00:06:09]>> How do you know it? You just know because you know that's circular.

[00:06:12]>> Yeah. It's not circular. It's a fact.

[00:06:14]>> Was saying like you know something because you know it is circular.

[00:06:20]Why do you say that?

[00:06:21]>> Because your your justification for the conclusion is literally the conclusion itself. Your conclusion is that God exists and your justification for that conclusion is that God exists.

[00:06:33]>> It's just a fact. I think you're just trying to cherryick.

[00:06:37]>> I just prove that it's a fact.

[00:06:38]>> I'm telling you. I'm telling you. But the reason why you don't believe is because >> Go ahead and prove that God exists if it's a fact.

[00:06:46]>> It's just a fact. You got to read for yourself. It has to be >> That's circular. That's also circular.

[00:06:50]>> It has to be a personal relationship.

[00:06:52]>> You have like some sort of like real reason to think that God exists or did you like if your debate strategy relies on you coming in here and just like affirming the conclusion a whole bunch of times without any justification, I think you're going to be, you know, I think you're in for a rude surprise when I ask you to provide evidence for your claim.

[00:07:10]>> I don't think I am. I know for a fact that he >> Okay.

[00:07:18]We can only do that so many times. If you're in that guest request box, make sure that you're 18 or older. Make sure that you believe in the God of the Bible, the Torah, or the Quran. I also ask that you have some sort of reason to think that God exists. If you don't have a reason to think that God exists, don't request to join. How's it going, the glorious gospel?

[00:07:36]If you're off the app, I can't hear you.

[00:07:38]You got to be on the app.

[00:07:40]Return to the app. Return.

[00:07:43]Hey, can you uh can you hear me?

[00:07:45]>> Yeah. How old are you?

[00:07:47]>> Can you hear me?

[00:07:48]>> Yeah.

[00:07:51]Can you >> I am I almost forgot how old I was. I'm 34.

[00:07:55]>> Okay. What religion?

[00:07:59]>> I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Say it again.

[00:08:01]>> What religion?

[00:08:02]>> Say it again.

[00:08:06]>> Is there a delay?

[00:08:07]>> Uh Christian.

[00:08:09]>> It feels like there's like a wicked delay.

[00:08:12]>> I think so. I can hear you though. Uh, >> can you can you hear me?

[00:08:18]>> When do you hear this? Tell me when.

[00:08:26]>> Can you hear me?

[00:08:33]>> Can you hear me?

[00:08:35]>> Can you hear me?

[00:08:39]>> I can hear you. Yes. There seems to be a delay.

[00:08:43]>> I can hear you.

[00:08:46]>> I'mma go out and come back in.

[00:08:48]>> Yeah, please.

[00:08:51]>> Well, make sure you're double tapping on that screen, sharing it with your friends, doing all the good stuff while we wait for him to go out and come back in.

[00:09:03]Yeah, you also um I mean you also can't be driving. That's like kind of the hidden stipulation, although it doesn't come up very often, so I don't usually list it, but you know, it is against Tik Tok terms of service to be driving. Um, although, you know, I would love to discuss with somebody who has like some idea what they're talking about. People said that that guy's a minister. I always love debating ministers uh because they know things, you know, they're not they they they've they're like familiar with arguments. They've like heard the word arguments or the they've heard the word argument. Um I don't know. Do you They have like apologetics. I guess I enjoy going against like an opponent who doesn't just get spawn killed.

[00:09:50]Whoa. You've been reading Intelligent Virtue. It's a banger book, isn't it?

[00:09:53]It's a It's a great [ __ ] book.

[00:09:57]Um, would I debate that Jesus is a real person? No, I think Jesus is a real person.

[00:10:13]Hey, how's it going?

[00:10:15]>> Hey, good. How are you? I'm uh I'm not driving. I'm actually on the side of the road, so I'm free. I'm good.

[00:10:23]>> Sure. Um, yeah. Uh, what makes you uh what religion are you and how old are you?

[00:10:29]>> I'm Christian. I'm 34.

[00:10:30]>> Okay. What makes you think God exists?

[00:10:35]>> Uh, you mind if I um ask you a question before I go into my uh my argument, I guess I can say.

[00:10:45]>> Yeah, go ahead. I'll ask you uh one question.

[00:10:48]Um it's it's pretty much the same question on your end is what makes you think that God uh don't exist.

[00:10:58]>> Mhm.

[00:10:58]>> What is like your best what you feel is your most solid argument that says this is like my main one out of my top three.

[00:11:07]>> Yeah. I think >> or my top five. What would you say your go-to mental is?

[00:11:12]>> Yeah. I think the process dilemma is pretty unstoppable. Do you think God was always creating or do you think he began creating at some point?

[00:11:23]>> Did he begin creating at some point?

[00:11:25]>> Yeah. Was he always creating or >> was he always creating?

[00:11:28]>> Yeah, exactly. Yeah.

[00:11:32]>> Um I would say he started creating at some point.

[00:11:35]>> Then God changes. He changed from not creating to creating which means that he's in time which means that he didn't create time.

[00:11:46]So you say he's not within time. Did he create time?

[00:11:50]>> No, he must be within time because he changes. All things that change are in time.

[00:11:57]>> And uh that's based off of what?

[00:12:00]>> Which premise you want?

[00:12:01]>> Time changes. Uh based off of what?

[00:12:03]>> Because if if nothing happens, then nothing changes. Which means every time something changes, something happened.

[00:12:13]But all an event is is something that happens. And all events are in time, which means that all changes must be in time.

[00:12:26]>> Okay. So if God created time, that means that God changed.

[00:12:32]>> Yes. Because he went from not creating time to creating time. He began to create time after not creating time. So he underwent a change.

[00:12:44]>> Okay. So if God went from not creating to creating which means that God changed then uh tell me why would that somehow justifies God not being real?

[00:12:57]>> Yeah. In so far as he would be in time which means that he's not the creator of time which means that he's not an ultimate being. He's not sovereign over things like the universe because time is a fundamental substance of the universe.

[00:13:11]>> Okay. And who created the universe?

[00:13:13]>> The universe always existed. Certainly it wasn't God on the basis of the dilemma that I'm giving you.

[00:13:21]>> Okay. So if the universe always existed um and never started to exist, which means the universe is God. No, God specifically is a personal ultimate foundation. We can arrive at that conclusion based not just on like church history and like the history of of the God conceptions throughout like the history of philosophy. God has been deemed to be an ultimate being but one of the mind and that also reveals itself in our everyday language. We refer to God with personal pronouns. We say you know uh he loves you or the reason for this is only known to him. So whatever type of being God is, God must be personal. I don't think that the universe itself is a personal being.

[00:14:04]>> Okay.

[00:14:06]>> So the universe itself is not a uh personal being. Um do the universe have a job that it does?

[00:14:14]>> I don't know what that question is asking, but this feels like a derail.

[00:14:17]>> Do you would you agree that God's not the creator of time?

[00:14:20]>> Let me ask you this. Can I >> Okay. I just we we arrived at a bit of a contradiction. So, I just want to make sure that we're we're like consolidating the points as they arise. Would you agree that God is not the creator of time?

[00:14:35]>> No, I would not agree to that. No.

[00:14:36]>> Okay. Then we need to actually rewind the tape a bit and go back.

[00:14:40]>> Question.

[00:14:41]>> Do you agree that God changes?

[00:14:47]>> Yes, God changes.

[00:14:49]>> Sure. So then God goes from a past state to a present state.

[00:14:56]So, okay. Uh, your your concept of God comes from where?

[00:15:02]>> Wait, sorry. Do you want to answer my question?

[00:15:04]>> Like everything that >> I I just don't know why you're trying to derail to a separate point.

[00:15:09]>> Let's just stick with the point that we were already discussing. You asked me for my best argument against God.

[00:15:13]>> You know, I gave you my best argument against God. Before we derail to something separate, let's just stick with the point.

[00:15:19]>> So, do you would you agree that >> previous question?

[00:15:21]>> Yeah. In virtue of God changing, would you then agree that God goes from a past state to a present state?

[00:15:31]>> Yeah. God can go from a past state to a present state while remaining in his past state.

[00:15:37]>> That's a contradiction. He would be both in a past state and a present state.

[00:15:42]>> Are you in a past state and a present state?

[00:15:45]>> Nope. I'm only in a present state.

[00:15:47]>> So are R. So, can I can I ask >> I'm not I'm not in the state of being 5 years old right now.

[00:15:54]>> Are you in the state of being a biological man as I can see you are?

[00:15:58]>> Yeah. Like currently, yeah.

[00:16:02]>> Okay. Can I can I ask you this question please? If you are a biological man presently, that means that you was a biological man yesterday. Am I right?

[00:16:13]Um, if by biological man you mean like an adult human male, >> then there's going to be some time >> in the past.

[00:16:22]Yeah.

[00:16:24]>> I I mean I would I would like you are not a woman. Just be >> Yeah. I'm not a woman.

[00:16:31]Biological male.

[00:16:32]>> Sure. If >> Yeah.

[00:16:34]>> If you are >> For as long as I exist.

[00:16:36]>> I just wanted to establish this question.

[00:16:37]>> Yeah. For as long as I existed, I was a male. Uh but I'm a male right now. If I wasn't a male right now, if somehow I changed from being like a male to being a female and right now I was a female, I wouldn't say that right now I am a male.

[00:16:53]>> Okay. Can I ask you this question?

[00:16:55]>> Okay. Wait, would you disagree with any of that?

[00:16:57]>> A male. If >> I I I want to get to that, but I I didn't finish asking my first question to you if you don't mind.

[00:17:08]So if you was a biological ma male yesterday, last week, last year, and you are a biological male right now, >> Mhm.

[00:17:18]>> then you went from past to present.

[00:17:24]>> Yeah.

[00:17:24]>> So that would be the same argument that you use against God.

[00:17:27]>> But right now, I'm no longer past >> is the point.

[00:17:32]>> You're no longer saying that God is both and present.

[00:17:38]Exactly. So, was you a So, if you was a male today and you are a male and present right now, I'm only present right now. I'm not past and present.

[00:17:47]>> So, so >> I don't occupy like two separate times.

[00:17:51]Wait, sorry. Do you think that you exist at two separate times at the exact same time?

[00:17:56]>> Like right now, do you exist at two times?

[00:18:00]>> So, my question was actually on you and I think you're trying to move the questioning to me. I'm asking you're asking me is like the claim that you've made is like gibberish, like obvious gibberish. You're saying that right now God exists both in the present and in the past.

[00:18:16]>> You're saying that I exist both that right now I exist both in the present and in the past. That right now I exist at two separate times. That's gibberish.

[00:18:26]>> So if you didn't if you didn't exist in the past, then that means you just got here.

[00:18:31]>> I did exist in the past. I no longer exist in the past right now.

[00:18:36]>> So you So no one should ever have a past conversation with you if you didn't exist in the past.

[00:18:41]>> Wait, what? Because the past used to be the present again.

[00:18:46]>> No.

[00:18:47]>> Wait, sorry. Can you can you repeat back to me what my answer was >> or were you not listening?

[00:18:51]>> Can I repeat this again? Because I don't I don't think you answered my >> I answered it pretty directly. If you want to hear like the exact same answers to the questions that you've asked. I mean, if your debate strategy relies on asking like questions to previous point, which is like you literally are asking questions. I don't know why that's the part you would disagree with.

[00:19:08]>> All right, let's >> You don't think you're asking questions from scratch?

[00:19:11]>> I think you're like extremely confused.

[00:19:14]>> No, let's start from scratch.

[00:19:15]>> Okay.

[00:19:16]>> Did you exist? And I'm I'mma talk slow.

[00:19:18]>> Yeah.

[00:19:19]>> Did you exist yesterday?

[00:19:21]>> Yeah, I existed yesterday because yesterday was at some point the present.

[00:19:26]>> Okay. Yes.

[00:19:27]>> If you exist, >> I no longer exist yesterday. Right now, >> you no longer exist yesterday. What is yesterday?

[00:19:34]>> Existed when yesterday was the present.

[00:19:36]When yesterday is no longer the present, I no longer exist then.

[00:19:41]>> So, is the is the present the present?

[00:19:43]>> The present is the present.

[00:19:46]>> How can the present be the present when what you just said is no longer present?

[00:19:51]>> Because now it's the past.

[00:19:54]>> Now is the past. So, >> you're getting confused by the concept.

[00:19:57]passage of time. Holy [ __ ] Wait, >> I'm not getting confused.

[00:20:00]>> Let's just calm down then.

[00:20:00]>> I think I'm backing.

[00:20:01]>> There's really no reason to be getting upset. Just chill out.

[00:20:05]>> If you think that you're doing well in this debate, then you're not tracking even a little bit. This has been like a pretty brutally one-sided conversation.

[00:20:13]You're literally claiming to me that the present is the past. Like, what are you talking about?

[00:20:17]>> What question?

[00:20:18]>> What question would you like to ask?

[00:20:21]What question would you like to ask me?

[00:20:23]Do you exist? only >> at the present and the past at the exact same time.

[00:20:31]>> Yes.

[00:20:32]>> Is the present the same time as >> you like for me to prove it to you.

[00:20:36]>> Is the present the same time as the past?

[00:20:43]>> Is the present the same time as the past?

[00:20:45]>> Yeah.

[00:20:46]>> No, it's not the same time as the past.

[00:20:48]>> That's a contradiction. You're saying that you exist at the exact same time in the present and the past, but also that it's not the same time between the present and the past. So, it's both the same time and not the same time. You're contradicting yourself.

[00:21:03]>> Okay. Can I can I now and I answer, >> do you reject that you're contradicting yourself? Like, which part of this would you reject?

[00:21:12]I I can't I can't accept that I'm contradicting myself if I can't actually uh uh contend with what you just said.

[00:21:19]>> Maybe I could type it out and you can tell me which part you disagree with.

[00:21:22]>> Conversation.

[00:21:23]>> Okay. So, you believe that.

[00:21:26]>> Oh, no. I I understand.

[00:21:28]>> You exist.

[00:21:29]>> I understand what you said. You're asking me. Let me repeat.

[00:21:32]>> And the present.

[00:21:34]>> The past >> at the same time.

[00:21:37]>> The past and the present.

[00:21:41]are not the same time.

[00:21:43]>> No, I I get I I don't think you have to type it out.

[00:21:46]>> If you exist, save your fingers.

[00:21:47]>> At two times fingers at the same time, then those two times are the same time.

[00:21:56]>> Therefore, >> okay, >> the past and the present >> both are and are not the same time. So, would you reject premise one, two, or three?

[00:22:07]>> Okay, that's that's So, in the past, what was your name in the past?

[00:22:18]>> Would you reject premise 23? I just don't know why you're trying to run.

[00:22:23]>> It's It's not running. I think you're having a one-sided conversation.

[00:22:27]>> Just reject a premise, bud. I got premise one, I got premise two, and I got premise three all on board. They're highlighted. To avoid the contradiction, do you reject premise one, two, or three?

[00:22:38]It's not uh whether I reject premise one, two, or three. The things that you're doing that I don't think that you are aware of is that you're going off of a premise that you provide for everyone.

[00:22:50]Yes. Very >> sub. You agreed to them. I don't know if you're aware of that.

[00:22:53]>> I don't know if you understand the difference.

[00:22:55]>> Maybe you forgot that you agreed to these, but I asked you all of these and you agreed to them.

[00:23:03]>> Okay. I Okay, let me ask you. want to unsay one of them, you can tell me which one of them you no longer agree with, but I need you to tell me which of these do you disagree with >> a after I agree. Can I can I uh make my comment or my question to you?

[00:23:20]>> Sure.

[00:23:20]>> Fine.

[00:23:22]>> After I agree. Okay.

[00:23:24]>> I just want to make sure we having a fair conversation. Yeah. With each other.

[00:23:28]>> All right. So you said premise one is you existed at both the past and the present at the same time.

[00:23:37]>> And premise two is what? The past and the present are not the same time.

[00:23:43]>> I'm I'm going just go with one. All right. For the sake of for the sake of time, no pun intended. I'm going just go with one.

[00:23:51]>> Okay.

[00:23:51]>> Okay.

[00:23:51]>> Sure. So then you would agree that that God is not both at the present and the past simultaneously.

[00:24:01]>> Uh the reason why that's a a logical fallacy of what you're doing is you're comparing me to God.

[00:24:07]>> Okay. But you would say God is at both the past and the present at the same time.

[00:24:11]>> If if I if I wanted to know about you, I'm not going to ask about your sibling.

[00:24:15]>> Sure.

[00:24:16]>> To find out truth about you.

[00:24:18]>> But you would say that this is true of God. that God does exist in both the past and the present at the same time.

[00:24:24]>> 100 100% true.

[00:24:25]>> Sure. Then God is in time. You just conceded.

[00:24:30]>> Okay. I don't I don't think you'll let me finish a sentence.

[00:24:33]>> Okay. Well, I can type out the next argument, then you can ask your question if you want.

[00:24:37]>> No, I'm just I'm saying if you're going to have a live Tik Tok, I think you want to have a live Tik Tok because you actually want to conversate with people.

[00:24:44]>> Am I right?

[00:24:45]>> I do. Yeah.

[00:24:46]>> So, let me ask you this.

[00:24:48]>> Yeah. That's that that's the only reason you would come up is to actually let someone talk and then I hear you talk.

[00:24:53]>> So let me ask you this question. The comparison that you are making is with me and with God >> as if you want me to stand in God's shoes. I'm not God. God however is past, present and future. That's what makes him God.

[00:25:13]I on the other hand can to a certain extent be in the past and in the present at the same time. What do I mean by that? My name is Quinn.

[00:25:26]I am not just Quinn right now. I was Quinn 20 years ago. I was Quinn yesterday. Mhm.

[00:25:33]>> Yesterday still exists because everyone around me can validate that Quinn was here 20 years ago. So I didn't change so far as uh when it comes down to those certain aspects. But to compare me with God, I think that's when things is like kind of falling apart because I'm not God. But God is past, present, and future.

[00:26:00]On your end, I want to ask you, you said your defense as of why God is not real.

[00:26:08]Will you mind repeating that to me?

[00:26:10]>> Mhm. Well, I mean, at this point, we have a separate mind to see God is >> Yeah, sure.

[00:26:14]>> I'm sorry. Say it again.

[00:26:15]>> Yep. So, so here's the contradiction.

[00:26:17]So, you claimed just now that God exists at both the past and the present at the same time. If God exists at both the past and the present at the same time, then God is in time. Uh, therefore, God is in time. If God is in time, then God did not create time. Therefore, God did not create time.

[00:26:35]>> Do you believe in time?

[00:26:37]>> Do you want to reject a premise or you just going to dodge?

[00:26:41]>> No, no, no. It's not.

[00:26:42]>> Do you disagree with premise one, two, or three here?

[00:26:45]>> I'm not I'm not asking you a uh I'm not asking you a question. I'm asking you not a question. Excuse me. I'm asking you to make a statement in regards to why don't you believe God? It's literally It is literally right there in front of you >> about using me as a foundation.

[00:27:01]>> Yes, it is literally right there in front of you.

[00:27:05]>> And And what is that? Can you Can you verbalize that for me?

[00:27:08]>> I I actually already verbalized it like 5 seconds ago.

[00:27:12]>> Can you do it again? Uh if you don't mind, even probably for someone that's watching.

[00:27:16]>> God exists at both the past and the present at the same time. Premise two.

[00:27:22]If God exists at both the past and the present at the same time, then God is in time. Premise three, if God is in time, then God did not create time. Therefore, God did not create time.

[00:27:33]>> If so, can I let me let me go that down to that last one. If God is in time, God did not create time.

[00:27:40]>> Yeah. He would have to create himself.

[00:27:41]>> Okay. Okay. He would have to create himself.

[00:27:46]So, if God is in time, God, you said God did not create time.

[00:27:52]>> Yes.

[00:27:52]>> If he is within time, >> because he would have to create himself.

[00:27:54]Correct.

[00:27:56]And that and the foundation that you're coming from is simply based off of you.

[00:28:02]>> Nope. You can't create yourself. A thing non-existence can't cause existence.

[00:28:09]>> So it lacks causal power.

[00:28:13]>> Okay. And if something didn't create itself, that would make it not God.

[00:28:18]Correct.

[00:28:18]>> If something didn't create itself, that would make it not God.

[00:28:22]If something didn't create itself, I don't think anything creates itself.

[00:28:27]>> So nothing creates itself. So what so if there was a God, what what would that entail in order for God to really be true?

[00:28:34]>> Well, I don't think I don't think that that could be I think that God's existence is a contradiction based on what I'm providing you. So do you reject with pre premise one, two, or three?

[00:28:44]>> So you don't so you don't believe in eternity then like things outside of time. Do you reject premise one, premise two, or premise three?

[00:28:52]>> Can I would like for you to stop with me on this point?

[00:28:57]>> Please kindly stop.

[00:28:59]>> I want you to accuse me of dodging and just add >> the argument's right there on screen. If you don't reject a premise, then the conclusion just follows.

[00:29:10]>> Okay, that's that's fine. You mind if I ask you, do you believe in eternity?

[00:29:14]>> By eternity, what do you mean?

[00:29:16]>> Things outside of time.

[00:29:17]>> Sure. It's a simple question. I'm not arguing with you. I'm just lit literally Yeah.

[00:29:22]>> rationally asking you a question.

[00:29:23]>> Yeah. I believe in things outside of time. Like for example, I think like numbers exist outside of time.

[00:29:29]>> Okay.

[00:29:30]>> So, do you reject premise one, two, or three?

[00:29:32]>> Speaking of numbers.

[00:29:34]>> Okay. If things exist outside of time, all right, like the universe, you said that the universe don't have a beginning or an ending, but you don't know how the universe got here. How did they do >> you? Oh boy. Are you really just going to dodge and derail? Why would you think I would allow this?

[00:29:53]>> The premises are highlighted. They're on the screen. If you don't reject a premise, you have to accept the conclusion. Unfortunately, that's just how logic works. What you're doing right now, it's like accepting that all men are mortal and accepting that Socrates is a man, but rejecting that Socrates is mortal. If you accept the premises, it just necessitates the conclusion. So, you need to reject a premise or accept the conclusion.

[00:30:17]Let me let me ask you.

[00:30:20]For you to believe that the universe was always here, what are you basing that upon?

[00:30:26]>> We're literally never going to get an answer to this question. This is so sad.

[00:30:30]>> I don't No, I just think you can't answer it. Like, how did the universe get here?

[00:30:33]>> That's fine. Now that Now that you've like effectively conceded my argument that God doesn't exist because you can't answer it or even engage with it anymore. Yeah, no problem.

[00:30:41]>> Um, >> no, I think I think it's always existed.

[00:30:44]I think it's an honest question. If I ask you >> existed, >> if I ask you how did the universe get here?

[00:30:51]>> If change existed, >> save I I please save your fingers. Save your fingers cuz I can't see what's on the screen. I don't have my glasses.

[00:30:59]>> Time always existed. That's okay. I'll read it out. It's just for the reference of the audience.

[00:31:05]>> Did the universe >> Oh, okay. Thank you. Thank you.

[00:31:09]>> Time always existed.

[00:31:11]>> Uh if time exists. So for the reference of the audience, >> space exists.

[00:31:15]>> Therefore, space always existed.

[00:31:20]Um, >> if spacetime exists, >> always exist. Okay.

[00:31:24]>> Then the universe exists.

[00:31:27]Therefore, the universe always existed.

[00:31:31]>> And I I only asked you to save the typing because I have about a good three four minutes. That's that's why I asked.

[00:31:37]>> That's okay. Yeah. So here's the proof that the universe always existed.

[00:31:42]What what is the proof that the universe always existed?

[00:31:45]>> Yeah, because change always existed and if change always existed then time always existed.

[00:31:50]>> But if time exists then space time exists.

[00:31:55]>> Okay. Uh in in this uh short three minutes that I have left cuz I actually have to run.

[00:31:59]>> Mhm.

[00:32:00]>> Uh within So if time So you said space always existed, right?

[00:32:06]>> Mhm. Yeah.

[00:32:07]>> When when were you born? I was born 25 years ago. 2001.

[00:32:14]>> 2001. Okay. Prior to 2001, how in the world do you know what's going on if you're not even here in the first place?

[00:32:22]>> Are you asking like with certainty?

[00:32:24]Well, just because change coming into existence is an impossibility because for change to begin to exist would itself be a change? So, there would be change before the first change.

[00:32:36]So okay, repeat that to me again one more time slowly.

[00:32:41]>> Change can't come into existence because if change came into existence then there would be a first change. There would be a changeless state that then changes into a state with the first change. But there was a change prior to the first change. So it can't actually be the first change. Which means that it's impossible to have a first change that comes into existence. Which means that change must have always existed.

[00:33:08]>> Okay. And you can prove that how >> I just proved it book or something >> with like an argument. It leads to a contradiction.

[00:33:17]>> That that's like saying that's like saying, "Hey Q, prove to me that you're a millionaire." And I say, "Hey, uh, what's your name? Uh, uh, sir >> Ian."

[00:33:27]>> Uh, Ian. That's like saying, "Hey, Ian, I'm a millionaire." And you say, "Prove it to me." And I said, "Well, I just proved it. I told you I'm a millionaire."

[00:33:35]>> Did you demonstrate a contradiction in you not being a millionaire?

[00:33:39]>> I'm sorry. Say it again.

[00:33:41]>> Did you demonstrate a contradiction in you not being a millionaire? Because I demonstrated a contradiction in time beginning to exist.

[00:33:47]>> And and that's the issue is based off of your own rational thinking. So which everybody logic to?

[00:33:55]>> Do you reject the laws of logic?

[00:33:57]>> Well, well, can you prove to me logic exists?

[00:34:01]Uh yeah, in order to hold the position that logic does not exist, you would need to presuppose that some things are not the case, which automatically presupposes the distinction between what is and what is not, which necessitates things like the law of non-contradiction, the law of excluded middle, and the law of identity.

[00:34:21]>> Okay. Can you give me an example of that like in everyday life? Because that's that's a bunch of words, but can you give me like an everyday example of that? Like how would I actually see what you said in my everyday life?

[00:34:32]>> Because it would be a self-defeating belief to deny logic.

[00:34:39]>> Okay. So it's so it's not it's not a logical thing for me to say God created the sun and the moon. That's not logical.

[00:34:48]>> Yes. Although I think that's an unsequit. I'm not sure how that follows.

[00:34:55]I mean, I don't think it's logical to think that God created the universe, but >> like I agree with what you said. It just seems to come out of nowhere, though.

[00:35:07]>> Okay, let me say this. To say that you're not sure means that you're operating obviously upon a a a foundation that is not uh is not certain.

[00:35:22]>> Yeah. Typically when people engage in like insane pivots, I do get a bit confused for a second.

[00:35:27]>> Um, yeah.

[00:35:30]>> So, are you certain? So, are you're you're certain that God don't exist?

[00:35:34]You're 100% certain about >> Yeah. There's literally a proof in front of you. Yes.

[00:35:40]>> Okay. And the moon and the sun and the stars doesn't prove it at all.

[00:35:45]>> Indeed, they wouldn't because if the universe always existed, then God never created it.

[00:35:50]No, I I didn't say it always existed.

[00:35:52]>> I'm proving to you that it always existed.

[00:35:56]>> So, the sun and the moon always existed.

[00:35:58]>> That doesn't follow. The universe always existed and the universe was always changing. It doesn't follow from that fact that the things that currently exist like the sun and the moon or me or you always existed. These things could have come into existence, but the universe itself always existed.

[00:36:14]>> So, you didn't always exist.

[00:36:16]>> Correct.

[00:36:16]>> And I didn't always exist.

[00:36:18]>> Correct. Uh, based off of what?

[00:36:21]>> Based off of the fact that there's like a beginning to my existence, right? I was born at some point.

[00:36:27]>> So, and so was you conscience before you was born?

[00:36:31]>> I have zero memories, zero conscious experience of before I I was born >> and that means that you didn't exist.

[00:36:39]>> Yeah. I have no reason to think that I exist.

[00:36:41]>> I mean, what you're positing at this point is like a skeptical scenario. Like you're you're basically asking me like how do I know that I'm not like a brain in a vat?

[00:36:50]>> I mean well your whole argument is also skeptical. You can't be 100% certain.

[00:36:54]>> I think you're confused about the terms that you're saying.

[00:36:56]>> I say if uh let's leave the word confused out cuz you don't know everything.

[00:37:02]>> Extremely relevant word. Yes. But I recognize when I don't know something. I would never use like a term if I didn't know what that term means. uh you just use the term skepticism in a way that demonstrates that you have no clue what that term actually means.

[00:37:19]>> Skepticism in this context is like skepticism about an entire like class of of knowledge or beliefs.

[00:37:27]>> Okay, I stand corrected. Who was the first human beings on the earth?

[00:37:32]Obviously, human beings have been here for a long time. Who was the first human beings on Earth? The entire population of Homo erectus gradually turned into the entire population of Homo sapiion.

[00:37:43]>> Okay. Uh, who told you that?

[00:37:46]>> We have fossil evidence of it.

[00:37:48]>> And how do you know those fossils are real?

[00:37:51]>> Because we can radiometrically date them. The alternative is like some grand conspiracy wherein the entire field of archaeological anthropology is just [ __ ] lying to us. Like, what do you think? What do you think archaeological anthropologists do? Do you think they're just like sitting around all day like jerking? They're girking.

[00:38:10]>> So, so you you're now assume, >> so you're now assuming that you know what they do and you're literally sitting in your house.

[00:38:18]>> So, what I'm doing is I'm arriving at the best explanation for the data in front of us. Your belief requires believing insane conspiracy theories. Uh my belief requires believing in the rigorousness of science which has provided the very microphone that you're spreading nonsense into.

[00:38:36]Okay. And and you're believing that based off of what random people that you don't even >> Why would our technology work if science wasn't reliable?

[00:38:46]>> Well, if if people told us that a car is a car for for thousands of years, >> why does your car work if science isn't reliable?

[00:38:54]>> Well, that's that's not my point. I was saying that people told us a car was a car. How do you know? Why? Why would it be the case that all of this technology that we're communicating with would be reliable if our science didn't work?

[00:39:10]>> So, you're saying so I'm not I'm not saying that science work or don't work.

[00:39:15]>> You are you're saying that it doesn't work.

[00:39:20]>> You either accept science or you reject it. And you're rejecting science.

[00:39:24]>> Okay. So, when did science exist?

[00:39:26]>> Oh my. the science hero was people.

[00:39:28]>> What a what a wild pivot.

[00:39:31]>> The scientific method is from like the 1600s, 1700s.

[00:39:35]>> It emerged from people like it. That's >> Francis Bacon and David Hume.

[00:39:41]>> Okay.

[00:39:43]And was science here first or was people here first?

[00:39:48]>> Yeah. People were here before science, which is why if you go back far enough, people have wacky beliefs.

[00:39:54]>> So people created science. Yes. Correct.

[00:39:57]>> Does science come >> It's like a methodology of arriving at certain knowledge.

[00:40:02]>> Okay. Does science come from the universe >> in some sense? Yeah.

[00:40:07]>> Science is an epistemology. It allows us to arrive at specific knowledge.

[00:40:12]>> Yeah. In the sense that it came from humans that it's like a tool that's used by humans in order to systematically learn things about the world around us.

[00:40:21]So I I think that's a contradiction for you to say humans was here first and then science was here because it came from the universe which would sorry that's a contradiction.

[00:40:31]>> Nope doesn't follow. So, for example, you know, if I had a newborn baby tomorrow, that newborn baby would come from a part of the universe, you know, my wife. Um, and the fact that it comes from a part of the universe doesn't mean that it must have always existed. Like, it doesn't follow from the fact that I came from a part of the universe, my mom, uh, that I always existed. That's like really stupid.

[00:40:55]>> So, I So, I thought you I thought you didn't exist prior to your birth. How in the world?

[00:41:00]>> That's correct. That's exactly what I'm saying. That is like literally my point.

[00:41:03]That's like the crux of the argument.

[00:41:06]>> Well, I I don't think you get the crux of the argument. If you if a partus >> If a part of you came from the universe which always existed, how did you not exist prior to?

[00:41:19]>> I came from a part of the universe.

[00:41:22]>> And which part of you came from the universe?

[00:41:24]>> All of me came from a part of the universe.

[00:41:28]>> Which part of you? All of me.

[00:41:31]>> So all of you is all of you or a part of you came from >> All of me came from a part of the universe.

[00:41:39]>> So your body came from the universe.

[00:41:41]>> A part of the universe. Correct. Yeah.

[00:41:44]>> A part of the uni. And what part of the universe >> gave you your existence here in this world? What part of the universe?

[00:41:52]>> So your mom is the universe?

[00:41:55]>> No, my mom is a part of the universe.

[00:41:58]And what part of the universe is that?

[00:42:01]What string?

[00:42:01]>> I don't even know what question that's asking.

[00:42:05]>> Yeah, cuz you know it don't make sense.

[00:42:07]>> The question that you're asking doesn't make sense. It's like gibberish. I don't know what you mean when you're asking like what part of the universe like the atoms that comprise her? Like do you want like her like spatial location like latitude and longitude? Like I'm not really sure what that question is asking.

[00:42:21]>> Listen listen everybody on the live understand what I just said. Not a single person alive understands what you said or thinks that you're doing well in this debate.

[00:42:30]>> Let me let me let me say it again.

[00:42:33]>> You say a uh you ca all of you came from a part p a r t of the universe.

[00:42:41]>> Correct.

[00:42:41]>> What part of the universe did you come from?

[00:42:45]>> And I asked you is your mom the universe?

[00:42:47]>> No, she's a part of the universe. She's not the entire universe.

[00:42:52]>> All right. I think you defeated yourself. Have a good day, man.

[00:42:55]>> This was so pathetic, dude.

[00:42:57]>> Like, I actually think it would be really sad to go through life in the way that you go through life.

[00:43:02]>> And now you're projecting your own lack of understanding of the word part onto me.

[00:43:06]>> That's not like >> this is like this is like dead simple, right? My mom is a part of the universe.

[00:43:12]>> I came from my mom. So, I came from a part of the universe >> like the atoms that make her up. I'm not really sure what that question is asking. If you say Q, let me let me help you understand more.

[00:43:24]Q, what part of the house do you stay in the most? Oh, I stay in the living room part of the house. I'm asking you. I'm not telling you I stay in my bathroom most of the time.

[00:43:36]>> I bet that's where all the part >> of the un Thank you for the joke. I'm asking you what part of the universe did you come from? Since you're saying a part of the universe, >> I came from my mom. My mom is the atoms that >> you know make up my mom. It's the atoms arranged momwise.

[00:44:01]>> Okay. How many atoms did it take for your for it to make up your mother?

[00:44:05]>> I have no [ __ ] idea. Lots.

[00:44:09]>> That's the point I'm making. There's a lot that you have no idea about.

[00:44:12]>> I agree. I think that there's tons I don't know.

[00:44:15]>> That's why you don't know what part.

[00:44:16]When I don't know something, I just say that I don't know it. But one of the things that I do know is the part of the universe that I came from. I came from my mom.

[00:44:27]>> And you said your mom is not the universe.

[00:44:30]>> My mom is a part of the universe. My mom is the atoms arranged mom wise.

[00:44:35]>> And which part of the universe?

[00:44:37]>> The atoms arranged mom wise.

[00:44:40]>> And which which part of the universe do those atoms come from?

[00:44:44]>> Which part? like the the protons and the electrons that make them up. Is that what you're asking?

[00:44:49]>> I'm asking you what >> are you asking like where did my mom come from? I mean my mom came from her mom.

[00:44:55]>> So like the Adams range grandma was >> asking you that.

[00:44:59]>> Those of you in the chat if you understand what I just asked, can you just please say yes without being bi >> Yo, if you have no [ __ ] idea what that dude's asking, please say no.

[00:45:09]>> If I ran if I ran into you on the street and I said, "Hey, bro."

[00:45:13]>> Bro, it's like sea of nose. Holy [ __ ] This is like devastating. You'd think that there'd be at least one.

[00:45:20]>> So, so, so you agree that a part of a thing is the same as the whole of a thing?

[00:45:26]>> No, that's my entire point is that it's not the case that a part of a thing is the whole of the thing. My mom is not the whole universe. My mom's a part of the universe.

[00:45:37]>> And I'm asking >> I'm like baffled that you don't understand this. She's the specific atoms that compose my mom.

[00:45:44]>> You know, she f she she takes up like a certain space in Colorado right now.

[00:45:51]>> Okay.

[00:45:51]>> Like I could I could point to my mom in that space and say the atoms that are enclosed momwise, you know, that's my mom, >> right?

[00:46:02]>> So, you know what part she's in physically in this world?

[00:46:06]>> Yes. Yes. And I'm asking you, what part did she come from in the universe?

[00:46:10]>> She came from her mom.

[00:46:13]>> And what part did her mom come from in the universe?

[00:46:17]>> It's going to be her mom. And it's going to keep on going back until we arrive at things like sexual dimmorphism. And then it's going to be hermaphroditic in nature. And then you'll go back even further. And you'll arrive at like single-c cellled organisms. Then you'll go back even further and you're going to arrive at like certain nucleotides that are going to form like RNA fragments that are enclosed by phosphoipid billayers. Then you're going to go back even further. You'll arrive at things like the formation of the earth, the big bang. And then, you know, you'll go back past the big bang. And then there'll be like a big crunch. Um, and then, >> okay, >> there'll be various cycles of big bounces and big crunches.

[00:46:52]>> Okay. I'm going to take the very last thing you said, which is going to take me all the way back to the beginning as far as we can go.

[00:47:00]>> Mhm.

[00:47:00]>> The crunch. Did the crunch come from the universe? Cuz I'm going to take that last piece that you gave me. Yes. The crunch came from >> Well, to be clear, the last piece that I gave you is that there's infinite cycles of big bounces and big crunches.

[00:47:14]>> Okay.

[00:47:14]>> The last piece of this is me saying like it just keeps going. Like the universe goes on forever.

[00:47:20]>> Okay. The universe goes on forever because it's eternal as you said multiple times.

[00:47:24]>> Yeah.

[00:47:25]>> And all people come from the universe.

[00:47:28]>> Yeah. They come from like parts of the universe.

[00:47:30]>> It comes from parts of the universe. Can do eternity beat eternity?

[00:47:35]>> By eternity, you mean what?

[00:47:38]>> Uh the universe. You said the universe wasn't created or >> typically when people talk about eternity, they're talking about like a thing that exists without beginning and without end. Is that what you mean?

[00:47:47]>> So do the universe Yeah. Do the universe have a beginning?

[00:47:50]>> No, I don't think the universe has a beginning.

[00:47:54]>> So if the universe don't have a beginning, my brother, and you came from the universe, >> I came from a part of the universe.

[00:48:01]>> You have >> because different parts of the universe have beginnings. Oh my. You've still you've been on this and you're still not tracking.

[00:48:09]>> So now different parts of the universe have a beginning.

[00:48:12]>> That's always been the claim. That's been my claim for the last like five minutes. Yeah. that parts of the universe have a beginning from other parts of the universe.

[00:48:22]>> Literally, think back to the argument we just had about me coming from, you know, I'm a part of the universe and I come from my mom who's a part of the universe and then she comes from her mom which is a part of the universe, >> right?

[00:48:34]>> So, it's these things coming into existence, these parts of the universe coming into existence from other parts of the universe.

[00:48:43]So, so certain parts, so now I have new information. It's like breaking news.

[00:48:49]>> Yeah.

[00:48:49]>> Certain parts of the universe have a beginning.

[00:48:52]>> Yeah.

[00:48:56]>> And the ones that we came from is that part that has the beginning.

[00:49:01]>> Yeah. Like the ones that we came from directly. Yes. How do you know that?

[00:49:06]>> Because my mom had a beginning.

[00:49:07]>> How do you know that?

[00:49:08]>> You know, my mom was birthed by her mom.

[00:49:13]But you don't know where the very first mom came from.

[00:49:16]>> I don't know why I would think that there is that there isn't like an infinite regress of the universe where potentially if you go back to previous iterations of the universe, there are other moms somewhere in that galaxy.

[00:49:30]>> If if someone was to say, "Hey, if this is not true, I'm going to somehow see it." Right? Uh, say if I could look into beyond human knowledge and I was to say, "Hey, I'm about to take a look. If this not true, then I have to do something very bad to you."

[00:49:49]>> Would you take me up on that bet?

[00:49:52]>> Would you say, "No, man. Uh, >> would you take me up on that bet or not?" Like, hey, if it's >> Can you give the terms again?

[00:49:58]>> Go ahead.

[00:50:03]>> If it was if everything that you're saying was not true. Yeah.

[00:50:09]>> And I was to somehow be able to see everything in a split second. Let's say the universe opened up my mind. And I was able to see whether what you are saying is true or not >> and I told you, "Hey bro, if this not true, I'm about to take a look. If this not true, then >> I'mma do something very bad to you."

[00:50:27]Would you take me up on that bet or would you be like, >> I'm not sure I understand.

[00:50:33]>> I I think I might be unclear as to what you're even asking.

[00:50:37]So, I'm I'm asking you, how can you really bank on any of this being true if if you just wasn't there?

[00:50:44]>> Because the law of non-contradiction like the whole crunches and >> the law of non-contradiction is true.

[00:50:52]>> Law of non-contradiction goes back.

[00:50:55]>> It's true of literally every proposition >> for what 21 years.

[00:50:59]>> Yep. Doesn't matter. Logic still always holds.

[00:51:05]There's no escaping logic. When you deal with things that are true or false, you're dealing with things that are either logical or illogical.

[00:51:14]>> So, you're using logic when you say certain parts of the universe is where we came from, but you can't tell me which part. And that's >> I did tell you I told you like multiple times.

[00:51:26]>> I told you like at least like [ __ ] like five or six. It does have a name.

[00:51:29]It's my mom.

[00:51:34]you. So, so your mom is the replacement for the universe.

[00:51:37]>> No, my mom is a part of the universe.

[00:51:39]You're still not tracking.

[00:51:41]>> This is like dead simple, too. This is like so simple.

[00:51:44]>> You still can't tell me what part >> is my mom. My mom is the part of the universe that I came from.

[00:51:49]>> If your debate strategy relies on you pretending to not understand, then I can just reexlain it every time you mistake my position. And then every single person in the audience is going to think that you're like a little bit dumber every single time until at some point they're just going to start thinking that you're like horrendous faith and that this is like the sort of like moral fruits that Christianity produces. Like people that need to willfully misunderstand their opponent in order to not get like thrashed by like the obvious answer to the question that they keep on receiving.

[00:52:21]>> Oh, so let me let me ask you this. So number one, it it shows for you intellectual immaturity cuz I don't need to throw the word dumb out in order to prove my point, which shows that you do, which means >> I think saying true things is good.

[00:52:33]Actually, >> I think that if something's true, then you should say it.

[00:52:38]>> I think that you're a dumb person, >> if not horrendous.

[00:52:41]>> No, no, it's not that. No, I'm just saying I don't need to say that you're not getting my point or that you know you're you have like some type of mental retardation because you're not getting my I don't need to put that out there >> because >> I mean you could totally say that if you want, but if you said that I just think the chat would make fun of you like even further, >> you know? I think that if you were to call me that on the basis of the way that you performed in this debate, like I just think people would think that that was like a little bit ironic.

[00:53:10]No, no, I don't I don't I don't need to uh I don't need to say that about you because as everyone can see, you cannot even tell me what part of the universe and you said >> I've said it like 10 times at this point. The part of the universe that produced me is my mom.

[00:53:27]>> So, can you prove to me that your mom is the universe?

[00:53:30]>> I'm not claiming that my mom is the universe, that she's a part of the universe.

[00:53:34]>> You want me to prove that my mom's a part of the universe? Do you want me do you want me to like show you her in like space? Do you want me to like show you that she takes space? What the [ __ ] are you asking?

[00:53:45]>> Did you see Have you ever seen the universe before?

[00:53:48]>> I see parts of the universe >> in and your mom.

[00:53:53]>> My mom's not the only part of the universe.

[00:53:56]>> So when you look at all humans, you are seeing a part of the universe.

[00:54:00]>> Each human is a part of the universe.

[00:54:02]They're not necessarily the same part of the universe unless they're the same person.

[00:54:08]And how do the universe look directly without looking at humans?

[00:54:12]>> I'm not sure that that's a well-formed question.

[00:54:15]No, >> I'm not sure that there's a way that you could look at the the entirety of the universe because in order to look at it, you yourself would need to be in the universe. So, you need to look at yourself. I don't I think that what you're asking is probably >> So, no one has ever So, no one has ever seen the the act the uh actual universe.

[00:54:33]>> People see parts of the universe.

[00:54:35]Nobody's seen like the entire universe.

[00:54:38]>> I'm not asking you. I don't want you to run to parts of the universe. I'm asking >> What are you ask? Are you asking has anybody ever seen all of the universe?

[00:54:46]>> The act. Yes.

[00:54:47]>> No. Nobody's ever seen all of the universe.

[00:54:51]>> I rest my case. Uh, have a good day, my brother.

[00:54:54]>> There's no way you think that's a good rhetorical look.

[00:54:59]Um, if you if no one has ever seen >> somehow like the three minutes that you were supposed to stay here for has turned into like 20 minutes. And I think that general relativity offers a pretty compelling explanation of what's going on here. You know, I've been slamming you at pretty close to light speed, which is why, you know, time is is passing way slower. It's just like if somebody's traveling on like a rocket ship at close to the speed of light, there's there's like they experience like less time, which is why, you know, it's like 20 minutes. Maybe to you it's like been 2 minutes, two and a half minutes because you've been getting slammed so quickly, but the rest of us it's been like 20 minutes.

[00:55:35]>> I just feel sorry for you. That's all.

[00:55:37]>> And my heart is burning.

[00:55:38]>> There's no need to feel sorry for me. I mean, this is great content. I love this content.

[00:55:46]>> I mean, yeah, it's great, but it's not it's it's sad at the same time cuz you >> I agree. It is sad. The sadness of content is what makes it such great content.

[00:55:58]I mean, if you know, if you want to defend things and you that you you've never seen, you know, uh, more power to you.

[00:56:07]>> You literally believe in God, big dog.

[00:56:09]You believe in God.

[00:56:13]>> So, we're on the same page.

[00:56:14]>> Have you seen God?

[00:56:17]>> Have you seen the universe? We're in the same boat, brother.

[00:56:19]>> I've seen parts of the universe. I've seen parts of God.

[00:56:22]>> Have you seen it?

[00:56:23]>> I haven't seen the whole universe. I've seen parts of it. Man is part of God.

[00:56:27]>> Yes. Man is created in the image of God.

[00:56:29]>> Are am I a part of God?

[00:56:32]>> You are created in the image of God.

[00:56:33]>> Am I a part of God?

[00:56:36]>> Yes, you a part of God.

[00:56:37]>> Is Adolf Hitler a part of God?

[00:56:39]>> Yes.

[00:56:40]>> Is God all good?

[00:56:42]>> Say it again.

[00:56:43]>> Is God all good?

[00:56:46]>> Is he all good? Yes, God is all good.

[00:56:48]>> So, Adolf Hitler is good.

[00:56:52]>> I never said Adolf Hitler is a part of God. God is all good. So then Adolf Hitler is good.

[00:56:59]>> So is is the that's like the same thing as asking the univer. You think you think I don't think the universe is all good. Do you think Adolf Hitler is good?

[00:57:08]>> So the universe is evil.

[00:57:10]>> Parts of it. Yeah. So wait, but let's not pivot. Let's not pivot away.

[00:57:14]>> So hold on.

[00:57:14]>> Do you think Adolf Hitler is good?

[00:57:16]>> He's running because he knows he got cooked on that point, dude. He got born out of the cosmology. He tried to like do some word play and he committed himself to saying that Adolf Hitler is all good.

[00:57:27]>> I mean is there like any other killed on >> what is the image of God?

[00:57:32]>> I've asked people to define this for me before and they can't give a coherent definition.

[00:57:36]>> I can give you a coherent definition.

[00:57:38]>> Okay. Yeah. I'll let you pivot away from you saying that Adolf Hitler is all good.

[00:57:42]>> The image No, because you don't understand what the image of God is.

[00:57:45]That's why you're confused. The image of God is the manifestation of human beings in comp in comparison to animals.

[00:57:56]>> God is not we don't never say God is an animal or a bird or >> is the father a human being.

[00:58:02]>> The the father yes have human qualities.

[00:58:05]He have >> is he is he a human being?

[00:58:09]>> All human beings come from God.

[00:58:11]>> Is the father a human being?

[00:58:15]>> Yes.

[00:58:17]How would you verse?

[00:58:18]>> Can I get the verse?

[00:58:20]>> Roman uh uh John chapter 8.

[00:58:23]>> John chapter 8 is going to say that the father is a human being.

[00:58:27]>> The for it is written the testimonies of two men is true. Is men human beings?

[00:58:32]>> Yeah. Where does it say the father?

[00:58:34]Let's see the father. I stand with the father who sent me. Uh my other witness is the father who sent me. Uh, >> and as it is written in your law, the testimony of two men is true.

[00:58:44]>> Man, then you will know that I am he and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the father has taught me. That doesn't prove that. I am telling you what I have seen in the father's presence. Nope, not there. Uh, you belong to the father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desires.

[00:59:01]He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding the truth, for there is no truth in him. where he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Uh, okay. So, yeah, none of that proved your point.

[00:59:15]>> So, it's so that for it is written if if you read the Bible, you would know what verse I'm coming from. For the it is written in your law that the testimony of two men is true. I ask you, is men human beings? Because the testimony of two men that Christ is referring to is him and the father.

[00:59:31]>> Testimony of two. It says two witnesses in my translation.

[00:59:37]>> What translation do you have?

[00:59:38]>> This is NIV. Let's see the NRSVE.

[00:59:42]>> Uh uh do the KJV cuz all of them is is not >> No, this one translates to those witnesses as well. We can just go back to the original Greek.

[00:59:56]Uh what do we got?

[01:00:01]Wait. Okay. It's John 8, but it's John 8. Uh >> I believe it's uh verse I can't think of the exact verse. Definitely >> or wait no 17. Sorry.

[01:00:13]>> For it is written in your law the testimony of two men is true. Right.

[01:00:20]>> Um I I definitely um Mhm.

[01:00:30]Sure.

[01:00:35]Okay.

[01:00:37]Um, yeah, it's translating it as witnesses >> and he's making a reference to the father.

[01:00:44]>> Okay.

[01:00:45]>> As witnesses, it doesn't translate it as man.

[01:00:49]>> Yeah. Well, it says in So, do you understand the difference between Bible translations?

[01:00:58]>> Uh, yeah. Well, the >> Yeah, I understand like broadly speaking. Yeah.

[01:01:03]>> Okay. Well, some translations are closer to the original >> than other translations are like the message Bible just throw it out the window. Okay.

[01:01:12]>> Far away from, >> right?

[01:01:15]>> So, >> so >> yeah, like the one that I the one that I quite like, the one that I enjoy um you know, I enjoyed the NRSVUE, which is like the academic standard Bible.

[01:01:28]Okay. And he's constantly referred to his his his uh uh god as father.

[01:01:36]>> Mhm.

[01:01:36]>> So would you say that a father is a human being?

[01:01:39]>> Not in this context. Certainly not.

[01:01:42]>> Okay. So the image of God is the simple fact that we have a a physical makeup that animals don't have.

[01:01:53]You think having the image of God means that you have a physical makeup?

[01:01:58]>> Does God have a physical does the father have a physical makeup?

[01:02:03]>> Yes. He came in a person of >> So then he's in the laws of physics.

[01:02:09]>> Say it again.

[01:02:10]>> Did God the father come down?

[01:02:13]>> God the father came down manifested in flesh in the person.

[01:02:16]>> God the father. You think Jesus is God the father?

[01:02:21]>> Yeah. You have a passage that says he's not.

[01:02:24]>> Oh man. Uh yeah. I mean it's referred constantly as like >> I mean >> as the son, you know, >> he's is Jesus the son of God.

[01:02:33]>> Jesus is the son of God who's also God the father simultaneously.

[01:02:38]That's what makes him out.

[01:02:39]>> Do you think the son is the father?

[01:02:42]>> The son is the father. Let me ask you this.

[01:02:45]>> We got a minister who doesn't even know his theology.

[01:02:48]>> You just rejected the trinity.

[01:02:50]14.

[01:02:51]>> You literally just rejected the Trinity.

[01:02:54]>> The Trinity explicitly states that, you know, they are they are not the same being there. You know, >> can you show me a passage? Can you show me a passage of scripture that say that that they are not the same?

[01:03:05]>> I can show you that comes to you from like the Nasian creed. What are But do you reject the trinity?

[01:03:12]>> I do.

[01:03:13]>> Oh, okay. I wish you would have led with that. Sure, that's fine. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, if you want to be like heretical, blasphemous even, that's up to you.

[01:03:21]>> No, the only reason I say that when Philip said to Jesus, "Show us the father." What did Jesus say back to him?

[01:03:27]>> I don't know. What did he say back to that?

[01:03:29]>> Well, this is what he said back to him.

[01:03:31]Philip, why do you ask, show me the father? He that have seen me have seen the father.

[01:03:39]>> Okay.

[01:03:40]>> Can you tell me what is Jesus saying by that?

[01:03:42]>> Do you think uh well, sure. I mean, under your interpretation, it sounds like what you want to say I didn't interpret yet.

[01:03:49]>> Probably probably what the trinitarian would say under that interpretation is that they're both God.

[01:03:56]>> Did Jesus say me and the father are both God?

[01:03:59]>> That that they share a being is what the trinity is claiming. So I think the trinitarian has like a plausible interpretation of this verse. I think there are problems with the trinity for sure. You know, I think it's like nonsense, but you know, >> it's definitely nonsense. That's that's why I'm asking you.

[01:04:13]>> What's the point of drawing the distinction between So you would say that Jesus is his own father.

[01:04:21]>> And the reason why Jesus is his own father is because he's not limited to human limitations like me and you. Me and you are mere mortals.

[01:04:29]>> So he [ __ ] his mother.

[01:04:30]>> This is actual >> it's it's not >> he impregnated his mother.

[01:04:37]>> In order for you so this is >> Did did God impregnate his own mom?

[01:04:44]God is spirit. God is spirit. Who put Jesus >> Edipus? It sounds >> but you also think that it's the Holy Spirit.

[01:04:55]>> So God sent himself to put himself >> into Mary >> and the who else would be into Mary? Who else would have been? It would have been >> like Joseph or you know I mean probably you want to say that she was a virgin when Jesus was born. So you don't want to say that.

[01:05:16]>> I mean even Musl can I get like a point blank answer on this? So you do think that God impregnated his own mother?

[01:05:27]>> Yeah. That's what that's what the Bible says. The Bible says that God conceived Christ inside of Mary.

[01:05:35]>> Okay. Even Muslims agree to this and uh for some reason you're using natural uh whatever to understand >> edypus Christ.

[01:05:46]>> So >> okay. Well, I think that's >> I mean but at the end of the day >> that's fun.

[01:05:54]>> I'm s >> Yeah. Well, it's just like you uh take up for the universe and you never seen it, which is actually kind of >> I've seen parts of the universe >> the same uh boat as me.

[01:06:06]>> No, I don't think that seen the universe, >> you know. I certainly don't worship somebody who [ __ ] their own mom.

[01:06:15]I mean, well, you're you're literally you're literally saying that we come from the universe and you never seen the actual universe, which is I think >> we come from parts of the universe and I've seen parts of the universe >> and you don't and you don't know which part, which sounds like >> I do and I've said it like multiple times. You're like short circuiting >> and you want >> this was a losing line of dialogue when you said it earlier and it's even worse now >> because this was like such a horrendous point for you.

[01:06:43]>> Yes, it is. And now you have to go back to this. You have to go back to being confused, right? You know, it was a bad look when you were just like confusedly asking the same question over and over again. Um, and now but it was like an even worse look when you tried to actually engage with the questions.

[01:07:02]I mean, I can't blame you, but you got anything else.

[01:07:16]All right, that dude's name is the Glorious Gospel.

[01:07:26]Let me H I'm just going to make sure I like save this for when I go back to make thumbnails.

[01:07:51]What? Dude, why the heck? Why is this guy Does anyone even think about like getting good at like content creation?

[01:08:07]The YouTube channel that's that he's like claiming is his in his Tik Tok bio doesn't even exist. What are we doing?

[01:08:16]You're letting all the clout go to waste.

[01:08:20]You're letting all the clout out. What are you doing?

[01:08:26]All right.

[01:08:44]Let's read supers. Cranky old Cuber, thanks so much for the super chat. I appreciate you. Welcome as a great Greg.

[01:08:51]Neck too, thanks so much for the five gifted memberships. Welcome everyone who received one. Cranky old Cuber, thanks so much for the super chat. Hey Ian, love your debates. You were taking a platonic stance the other day to ground something against a theist. Don't remember full context. Uh, do you like platonism for that or just for fun? I think plonism has some plausibility to it. Um, I think that there are reasons to think that Pltonism is true. Um, I think that it offers like a certain like explanatory power. Although I'm not like married to the position. If if the position turned out to be false, I don't know. like I would just change my mind on it.

[01:09:26]Reverend Nate, thanks so much for super chat. If all energy and matter disappeared, do you think time would stop existing? That seems to be some debate and I can't wrap my head around the no view. Um, yeah. Uh, I'm actually reading up on that exact view right now.

[01:09:40]So, if you want some reason to think that that's not the case, let me make sure Dr. Blitz isn't in the [ __ ] guest box before I start spreading all this like physics misinformation.

[01:09:54]Okay, we're good. We're we're clear to spread all of the physics misinformation that we want. Um, so my understanding of quantum field theory is that the fields would still exist even if they had the lowest possible energy value at every single point. The fields would not go out of existence even if they had like minimum values across the entire field.

[01:10:17]Um what that indicates is that these fields have some sort of existence that's going to be there independent of whether or not there's energy. That the energy is like a property of these fields uh that is something independent.

[01:10:33]In fact, what what probably you want to say is that the spacio tempmporal facts of all of the [ __ ] Hey, what's up quant? Hi, I heard talk of physics.

[01:10:48]>> Yeah. Um, let me know if this is false, but is it true that the quantum fields would still exist even if there's like a minimum value at all their points?

[01:10:57]>> Yeah. Yeah, the fields still exist.

[01:10:59]>> Let's go. Um, is a minimum value like zero value?

[01:11:04]>> Uh, not necessarily. No.

[01:11:06]>> Okay. Is it possible to have zero energy?

[01:11:11]>> Um, not really. There's you you you get up to the uncertainty principle, >> the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, and energy and time don't commute with each other. And therefore, if you take a measurement, there's always going to be some uncertainty in the energy that you detect.

[01:11:31]>> And you know, given that zero is a pretty precise value, you can't have perfectly zero. It's always going to be some range.

[01:11:39]>> I see. Um, okay. I I think that makes sense. Sure. Um but yeah, to to answer this dude's question to to continue yapping about this dude's question, uh what the what the person who takes the substantiveist view about time wants to say is that things like space and time are going to have independent existence of the things within them. that even if there were no objects, like nothing had duration, nothing had extension, that there would still be some sort of like space that was there. Um or >> I mean time that was there.

[01:12:16]>> The tricky thing is that you can you can kind of create objects out of just space and time alone like with gravitational waves for example. This is like the this is like the hidden forbidden position which is called super substantivivalism.

[01:12:28]Uh which holds that actually all of the physical objects are going to be grounded in space and time fully grounded in space and time.

[01:12:39]>> I mean that's certainly the case in again as I said gravitational waves. Now with our current understanding of physics you can't just get all the other fields from just space and time alone.

[01:12:49]You need other quantum fields on top of that. Um, but if you did only have space and time, like no matters or anything, you could still have like gravitational waves propagating through that universe.

[01:13:01]>> I see. Okay. Yeah. This is um I mean that's like a position that I'm I don't know. I don't know if I want to say that I'm like drawn towards super substantivalism at this point, but certainly I think if you have an explanation for the other stuff, it's like way more parsimmonious than saying, you know, we have like all the other positions are like dualist positions that have to hold that there's like two fundamental things. Like you'd um for example like if you're a relationalist you think that all space and time is are the you know relations of of like distance between objects or the relations of like duration between events. Um >> you know in like a view like that you need to posit that there are both like these objects and then in addition to that that there are these relationships between them as being like these two fundamental things. And then if you hold the substantive list view, you're going to need to hold that there's, you know, the the space time substance and then the objects themselves. But then for the super substantive list, you only posit one entity which is spacetime and then it gets you all the stuff.

[01:14:03]Well, so if you are able to form well, first a grand unified theory to unify all like the quantum forces with each other into just like a single force that uh you know gives rise to all the matter fields and forces on the quantum scale.

[01:14:20]Once you have that, if you unify that with gravity into a theory of everything or a toe as as the acronym goes, uh then you would have this one like mathematical object that gives rise to all the forces including gravity and all the matter fields and everything. Uh it probably wouldn't be just space and time. It'd be some more abstract, you know, field of some kind, but maybe Blitz would have a better inclination as to that.

[01:14:49]>> Okay. Um, you know, string theory is like one example of these.

[01:14:52]>> [ __ ] He's here. It's uh it's round, guys. It's round. It's not flat at all.

[01:14:56]It's round.

[01:14:59]>> Hey, from the point of view of an ultra relativistic nutrino, >> you rang.

[01:15:07]talking about how round the earth is, >> how how obid >> how oblid spheroid, how I don't know what the the [ __ ] correct like I don't know what the correct word there would be.

[01:15:22]>> Obloid, isn't it?

[01:15:25]>> Yeah, clearly oblate. [ __ ] Damn, I got caught. I don't know anything about the earth. Um uh no we were just discussing uh what the substantivalist or like super substantivalist position might look like. Uh Blitz, there was something that I was wondering actually. I was thinking about this today. So do you think that under the relationalist view of time that it would make sense to say that time existed if there was only like like a single point of space or like a like let's say let's let's do time even.

[01:16:00]Let's say that there's like just a single clock and the timeline is there's only like one point. There's just like it's like straight up.

[01:16:09]There's no other points in time other than just this one point under the relationalist model. Do you think it's >> there's only one point? There's only one point of time or there's a timeline.

[01:16:18]>> There's one point of time.

[01:16:21]There's only a single moment.

[01:16:22]>> Still got space.

[01:16:24]>> Is there space?

[01:16:25]>> I think so. Yeah. Yeah. I mean for the clock you'd have to deposit. Yeah. So if there's only one moment of time, you it sounds like what you're describing is something without time.

[01:16:36]>> Okay, that's my intuition on it. Okay, now now hear this critique. Um so what what the Hardle Hawking state wants to say is that there's like some coming into existence of time. Um, but in order for there to be a first moment of time, it would need to stand in like a temporal relationship to something else. But if it's the first moment, there is no other moment for it to stand in that relationship to which means that maybe you want to say that >> wait a minute, but it stands in a temporal relation with future moments of time.

[01:17:10]>> Sure. Then you would be committed to B theory for the hurdle hawking state.

[01:17:13]>> Yeah, you are.

[01:17:14]>> Okay.

[01:17:15]>> I mean, we already know B theory is essentially true.

[01:17:17]>> Yeah. Hardle Hawking does not make any sense on any on any other view of time.

[01:17:21]>> Okay. Sure.

[01:17:21]>> Yeah. Yep. Well, then that's all fine.

[01:17:23]Um, I also think but okay, the the way that I want to run this argument, are you familiar with William Lane Craig's uh view of creation?

[01:17:33]>> Uh, mildly, I know he's a neolorencia, neolorian, which is crazy, but >> so he thinks that God existed atmporally and then God like starts acting and then he's in like God becomes temporal basically >> because like by by acting he is now temporal.

[01:17:51]>> Yes. or something.

[01:17:52]>> Okay. But I think that it runs into the problem that I just described, which is that he's also a relationalist, which means that at the very first moment of time, and because he holds a theory, there are no other moments of time that have elapsed. This is the first moment.

[01:18:06]>> But under relationalism, this actually can't be a moment of time. You need you need like two moments of time in order to have the first moment, and it would be at the second one. So, you would have time before time.

[01:18:18]>> Yeah, that seems a little bit suspect.

[01:18:20]Do you think that that argument goes through? What do you think?

[01:18:23]>> Well, so I don't think that you need I don't know how you're a relationalist and also an atheist.

[01:18:32]>> Those two those two things automatically seem >> in contradiction, right? Because an atheist wants to say that there is no moment of time except this moment.

[01:18:41]>> That's true. Maybe they want to say that it's like it's like conceptual moments between like this moment and like past moments.

[01:18:51]Yeah, that I that I wouldn't understand how how you would makes make sense of that. Um yeah, it's really a question of like the how WLC understands what time is because I mean look if there's some sort of other relation that indicates the transition for you know God transitioning from atmporal to temporal kind of like in the Hardle Hawking state >> then maybe you can make sense of it >> but if he's saying that this is merely a temporal transition then I don't know what that means.

[01:19:26]I I just think you have more issues of like how do you have a mind in an atmporal state like >> well yeah there's that >> you can't you can't deliberate right that's that's the biggest issue in my opinion >> probably you want to say that it's like eternally deliberated but I don't it gets like quite weird I I don't know how to make sense of like >> well you don't want to say eternally either because eternally means forever which is a time word you want to say like atmporily deliberated or something >> yeah well >> and I don't imagine having a computer that doesn't like need to process in order to that doesn't make a sense.

[01:19:59]>> Sure. Um I bet I bet Grock would know.

[01:20:05]>> Uh is William Lane what is what is William Lane Craig's definition of time.

[01:20:17]Come on Gro.

[01:20:22]Uh well yeah everyone knows that he holds to a theory but is he like a relationalist?

[01:20:31]I think he's a relationalist.

[01:20:34]I don't think you can be like an absolutist about time and think that it began to exist. If you're an absolutist about it then it sort of always existed because at that point time becomes like the dimension for the possibility of change.

[01:20:48]So if if there's a thing that exists and change is possible, then time would exist. So I don't know. This this view is crazy. Okay. Wait, is he a relationalist?

[01:20:59]>> The metaphysics of time are really hard.

[01:21:01]>> They are. I've been reading up on >> Even the physics of time is really hard.

[01:21:04]It turns out, >> right? Yeah.

[01:21:06]>> Like I was working on a I branched off a project I was working on and it you know when you when you do quantum gravity, time is no longer a variable. Um, time is a variable that you solve for in some sense. And so like trying to make sense of what the what the equations I was working with even mean like what does it mean for something to evolve from one state to another state if there's no time.

[01:21:30]>> Yeah, I guess it's kind of hard to know what that's even saying.

[01:21:34]>> Like so so there's something called so in in quantum mechanics there's stages, right? First quantization is like what you learn in undergrad. You solve a hydrogen atom. You solve the the behavior of an electron around a hydrogen atom.

[01:21:46]>> Mhm. with like just a classical electromagnetic field that it produces or whatever. Then there's second quantization where you now treat the fields as the variables and those fields live in spaceime and you can have superpositions of different kind of values of the fields and I recently found out about something called third quantization where you talk about superposition of the spaceimes sorry superposition of not even that it's much weirder than that um you can talk about superposition of the space times that's your universal wave function but now you want to talk about a field of universal wave functions and so you can propagate through the space of universal wave functions and solve systems there. It gets very weird.

[01:22:29]>> That's that's disgusting. Math was never meant. Sand was never meant to think.

[01:22:34]This isn't right.

[01:22:37]>> Return to Return to April.

[01:22:39]>> Return.

[01:22:42]Um >> this reminds me of when I first uh learned about Wick rotations. Uh, that really messed me up for a little bit.

[01:22:49]>> Uh, okay. What is What is dark energy a property of?

[01:22:54]>> Uh, I don't know.

[01:22:57]>> I guess physics is question.

[01:22:59]>> Let's Let's pack it up, boys. It's all over.

[01:23:01]>> I mean, it could be a property of spaceime, but I lean towards it's like some sort of, >> you know, like field of some kind.

[01:23:09]>> Some dark sector particle.

[01:23:11]>> Yeah.

[01:23:12]>> Okay. But would you say that like the fields are a property of spaceime?

[01:23:17]>> Maybe.

[01:23:18]>> Okay. Sure.

[01:23:21]>> Well, okay. Actually, I think I think that probably the more responsible answer is something like the spaceime plus the fields on it are one thing.

[01:23:32]>> Spacetime.

[01:23:32]>> So, it's not like the spaceime is more fundamental than the fields, but that the fields are like that would be like saying is time a property of spaceime?

[01:23:40]Well, okay. Sure. So we So but time is like a part of the bigger thing.

[01:23:46]>> I think I'd say it's a part of it. I don't know if I'd say it's a property.

[01:23:49]>> Maybe >> maybe you're asking if is it a necessary part of it?

[01:23:54]>> I certainly it seems like a necessary part of spaceime like time seems like >> one can think of like a spaceime that doesn't have these fields.

[01:24:05]>> Yeah, you could do that. But what but what I'm getting at is I think probably more fundamentals. We need another like like spacetime together with these fields is like the fundamental thing and then you can like talk about individual like in the same way that you can talk about moments of time in spaceime. You could talk about distinct fields in the bundle of fields attached to spaceime like there's one big box that has fields and spacetime in it. They kind of live together but you can think about them separately.

[01:24:36]>> Wait, say the last sentence again. So you have like this this bundle is probably not the right word like this box and inside the box is the space time and all the fields attached to it. Um and that's like the fundamental thing in the same way that you might think that spacetime is the fundamental thing which has which is a box that contains time and space.

[01:24:53]>> Mhm.

[01:24:54]>> So the box contains the fields plus spaceime.

[01:24:57]>> Sure.

[01:24:57]>> And you can look in the box and you can like probe different pieces of the box.

[01:25:00]So you can probe different fields, you can look at different moments of time, you can look at different places, but it's all like one big thing that's clumped together.

[01:25:06]>> Okay. Sure. And would the would the wave function monist want to say something like you're able to extract this big box from the wave function?

[01:25:17]>> They would say that the full description of the box is the wave function. Yeah.

[01:25:20]>> Okay. Sure.

[01:25:21]>> Or I guess if you're if you're a wave function, you'd actually want to say that the the box is all of the properties of the wave function.

[01:25:28]>> I see. Interesting.

[01:25:31]Okay. Sure. So then they would hold that all of these properties emerge from the wave function, which Okay. Do you think that that view is like probably correct on the basis of like the Wheeler Dit equations that time is emergent?

[01:25:42]>> That's the that's the really tricky thing. Um that's >> debunked again twice in 5 minutes.

[01:25:48]>> There you go. That's literally the thing that I was playing with the other day.

[01:25:51]Um maybe >> okay.

[01:25:53]>> Um or you might have to do third quantization and that now you have a field of >> way of universal weight. I don't know.

[01:26:01]It's it look this is complicated like I it's and this is not complicated because I'm dumb and it's not complicated because >> math as much.

[01:26:09]>> What >> this is why I work with equipment and not math as much.

[01:26:12]>> Yeah, but the math is the fun part. It this is complicated because it's it's really hard to think about the way that we talk about physics if time is an output not an input or if space is an output not an input, right?

[01:26:29]Um, I I could imagine how that could be the case.

[01:26:34]Well, I I guess I don't know if you run into this. I don't know [ __ ] anything about physics. I'm talking way out of my ass here, but it's kind of hard to visualize I I think we I think humans visualize things in like strictly like spatial and temporal terms. Like when we're visualizing like an object, we visualize it spatially. And when we're visualizing like an event or like an action or like a verb, we visualize it like temporally. Um I have no idea how you could go about like really understanding what's happening if you take those dimensions away.

[01:27:08]>> Yeah, it's um hard but people do it. I mean like when you're doing Wheeler Dit stuff like you are you're essentially solving for a wave function of the universe where there is no time variable and yet there's in some sense dynamics >> is there space >> and kind of not really >> ah gosh I think I think the physicists must have just overlooked this but I'm looking at the Wheeler Dit equation uh I I found the time.

[01:27:47]>> Yeah, but that's not the right that's that's not you're that's not an input variable. You're solving for this metric.

[01:27:52]>> Oh, [ __ ] Wow.

[01:27:54]>> So, it's kind of the output.

[01:27:55]>> I suppose the physicists were right.

[01:27:56]There isn't time.

[01:27:58]>> Yeah.

[01:27:59]>> But isn't the equation symmetric?

[01:28:02]>> No. No. So, so what you're solving for So, so typically >> physical system.

[01:28:08]>> Yeah. But so so typically in physics what you have is you have a some equation of motion that tells you how something changes with time and perhaps it changes spatially as well. So like maybe it depends on space and time and you solve for whatever the function is because that gives you you know I don't know how a ball moves through space or whatever and so your differential equation usually looks like there's some number of derivatives with respect to time of the thing that you're trying to solve and that equals whatever you know fals ma all that stuff the wheeler dit equation there is no you're not taking derivatives with respect to time your dynamical variable is not time or space for that matter >> oh wait what's the dynamical variable is it dx >> it's some metric component so um if you're doing what's called a mini supererspace approximation where you kind of assume the universe is homogeneous and kind of like our universe it's mostly mostly smooth >> um your dynamical variable is the size of the universe >> that uh when you say size I I think that that's like a spatial term >> yeah it is um so I mean that that's why I was kind of iffy about whether or not like there is space in the wither dit like there kind of but not as a there's not position. There's like this variable that tells you basically the output. So so the wave function depends on the size of the universe, right?

[01:29:33]So you'll get a different value of the wave function at different sizes.

[01:29:37]Is does each size of the universe correspond to its own unique wave function or could there be two separate wave functions for the same size?

[01:29:47]>> No, no, no. So the wave function is defined over all possible sizes between zero and infinity I guess.

[01:29:53]>> Yeah.

[01:29:53]>> Um and the wave function takes on a different value depending on once you've solved for the wave function of course it takes on a different value depending on what your input size is. You input a size you get out an complex number.

[01:30:06]Are there any wave functions that exist other than like is it onetoone between wave functions and sizes?

[01:30:18]>> No, the wave function is a it's a the wave function is a function of size.

[01:30:23]>> Okay, sure. So it takes size as an input variable >> spits out a number.

[01:30:28]>> Okay.

[01:30:30]Okay. Sure.

[01:30:32]>> It's very weird.

[01:30:33]>> Uh that is very weird. Sure.

[01:30:37]>> Okay. Um, >> and in an expanding universe, size roughly correlates with time. So, you almost get time out, right?

[01:30:47]>> I got time out when I was a kid.

[01:30:49]>> There you go.

[01:30:52]>> Um, sure. Wait, say that again.

[01:30:55]>> Sorry, I made I made a dumb joke because I can't cope with like >> Yeah, tell me about it.

[01:31:01]>> Yeah. So in an expanding universe, the universe what it means to be expanding is that the size grows as the time grows, right?

[01:31:10]>> Yeah.

[01:31:11]>> Yeah.

[01:31:12]>> So if your universe if your wave function is describing a solely a strictly expanding universe, then you sort of get a time variable for free kind of by proxy with respect to the time.

[01:31:21]>> Sure. Because it's just going to be a matter of the size.

[01:31:24]>> Yep.

[01:31:24]>> Because as the size goes on over time >> collapses like starts shrinking in at some point. That's the problem. If you have any sort of if you have any sort of turnaround, your your size variable no longer corresponds to a time.

[01:31:37]>> Yeah.

[01:31:39]>> So that's where things get really messy.

[01:31:44]>> One thought that I've this is like this is like tangentially related, but one idea that I've been thinking about um so so time obviously has like a direction to it or at least we think it does. Um, but I would assume that the thing that determines the direction of time would also determine the direction of change.

[01:32:06]>> The way I always see it is that the arrow of time at least like in statistics is just away from points of low entropy.

[01:32:16]>> Yeah. But then if you wanted to say something like entropy reverses, then that seems to get messy.

[01:32:22]>> Sure. that this my description uh has a lot of uh caveats to it.

[01:32:28]>> Oh. Oh, yeah. Sure. Yeah. I mean, I agree with that.

[01:32:31]>> Specifically in like closed systems, you know.

[01:32:34]>> Yeah.

[01:32:35]>> This is what the arrow of time would be defined as.

[01:32:37]>> What are the other views on like what what the arrow of time maps onto or like what grounds the arrow of time?

[01:32:45]Um there's a view that and this is this seems very dated to me but one of the explanations was that it's the arrow of time is the direction in which electromagnetic waves get bigger rather than smaller.

[01:32:59]>> Um like if you jiggle an electron around the electromagnetic waves kind of move away from it.

[01:33:05]>> Oh sure.

[01:33:05]>> And so the sphere gets bigger.

[01:33:08]>> Um that's the electromagnetic arrow of time and it seems it seems like that's probably related to the entropic arrow of time as well. um because a bigger spread of the electromagnetic field or the electromagnetic wave does have higher entropy.

[01:33:22]Um so that's probably correlated. Um but generally there's not really a good explanation as to why there's an arrow of time at all at a fundamental level.

[01:33:32]>> It seems like you would have an arrow of time even if like electromagnetism didn't exist, right?

[01:33:36]>> Yeah, it seems like you should, right?

[01:33:39]And I mean presumably this would be, you know, there'd be an arrow of time associated with any kind of radio radiative process, but >> okay. Wait, so I guess why wouldn't you just hold the Oh, [ __ ] Because if you if there's a big crunch, then you couldn't use size.

[01:33:56]That's right. We just talked about that.

[01:33:58]Okay.

[01:33:59]So whatever accounts for like the arrow of time, is there going to be like some sort of like Wheeler Dit equation that is a derivative over that?

[01:34:15]>> Um, no.

[01:34:17]>> Okay.

[01:34:18]>> Not necessarily. Anyway, so in the Wheeler Dit equation, so the Wheeler Dit equation is it is time agnostic, right?

[01:34:24]time has to like if you're going to trust the wither equation then time has to kind of emerge.

[01:34:30]>> What you can do is you can say okay well if time is the if it's if it's entropic for example then you can derive an arrow of time from the wheeler dit equation um but the wheeler dit equation kind of indicates that again if you trust it uh that there is no kind there is no intrinsic or Yeah, there sorry there is no exttrinsic arrow of time whatsoever.

[01:35:01]>> Okay.

[01:35:02]>> Like the boundary conditions, right?

[01:35:05]>> Yeah.

[01:35:08]>> Okay. I'm tracking um there's I'm I'm reading up a lot right now about the dispute between um like the relationalists and substantivists and like super substantivalists about time.

[01:35:22]Um, I don't know. Uh, Blitz, there's like a chapter of a book that came out quite recently. It's like 10 pages and it kind of like overviews the history of the debate and like the current positions of it. Would you be interested in that chapter?

[01:35:34]>> Sure.

[01:35:34]>> Okay. I'll I'll send it to you.

[01:35:38]Um, whoa. Big shout out to Diluted for sending me this. Oh, wait. I don't know if I should have said that because what if the publisher comes and like [ __ ] like executes them.

[01:36:02]All right. I uh I sent it to you. I think it's chapter what chapter is it?

[01:36:08]It's chapter 14. It's quite good. Um and it gives like lots of resources, but I don't know. I want to I'm I'm to the point where I want to start forming views.

[01:36:20]So, I want to read through all the positions. Um, >> chapter 10, you said.

[01:36:25]>> What?

[01:36:26]>> Chapter 10.

[01:36:27]>> Chapter 14.

[01:36:29]>> 14. Okay.

[01:36:30]>> Yeah.

[01:36:31]>> I love me a good book that's hyperl.

[01:36:34]>> Yeah, true.

[01:36:36]Oh, wait. What was I um under relationalism?

[01:36:44]Okay, let's say let's say we had one particle and then another particle spinning around it.

[01:36:52]Under relationalism, is this an identical state to we have one particle and then another particle and then the one particle is just spinning in place.

[01:37:04]>> You're asking from the perspective of the Okay, so particle A and then particle B is spinning around it. You're asking from the perspective of particle B. Is particle A spinning around it?

[01:37:12]Maybe I guess like from the perspective of the relationalist is just is this just the same universe >> if that's all there is perhaps. Yeah.

[01:37:23]>> Okay. Um >> well so to my understanding uh the universe uh like the rotational frame of the universe is in one in which like the total angular momentum is zero.

[01:37:36]>> Oh no.

[01:37:38]>> [ __ ] Is that what it sounds like right before You you die.

[01:37:45]>> I guess I'm taking over now.

[01:37:46]>> Holy [ __ ] dude.

[01:37:49]>> I am the captain now.

[01:37:51]>> Yes.

[01:37:51]>> So, no, my understanding my understanding is that essentially due to frame dragging, if that's all that's in the universe, um like the proper reference frame of that universe is one in which the total angular momentum of the system is zero.

[01:38:07]>> Okay.

[01:38:08]Um yeah, there was something about that in the chapter about angular momentum being zero. Um >> this is um related to the thought experiment of like having a bucket of water in empty space and >> Yeah.

[01:38:21]>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

[01:38:22]>> Yep.

[01:38:23]>> I'm familiar with this. Um well, okay.

[01:38:26]But that's what I'm wondering. So let's say you have the bucket and and then with the bucket you have like the like the curved surface, right? Because of centrifugal force. Um, >> he's back.

[01:38:38]>> Okay, let's get him back up here.

[01:38:42]>> Okay, I didn't know what I was talking about.

[01:38:45]>> No, I'm kidding.

[01:38:46]>> So, for one, um, let's let's take two worlds. One, we have, um, the bucket the bucket spinning around. Because the bucket's spinning around, it's like a little bit concave downwards because that's what happens when you spin the bucket, the water's like pushed to the sides. And then we have another world where instead of the bucket spinning around in the universe, the universe is spinning around the bucket.

[01:39:10]>> Would the bucket be concave in this scenario if the universe is the thing spinning around it?

[01:39:15]>> At least in principle. Yeah.

[01:39:17]>> Yeah, that's my understanding.

[01:39:18]>> It's black.

[01:39:20]>> What?

[01:39:20]>> The distribution of matter in the universe is what defines like the rotational reference frame.

[01:39:27]>> Yeah, I think I just don't have like the physics intuitions to The way I always relate it to is like the concept of frame dragging with like a black hole. Um because if a black hole carries a lot of angular momentum, it'll sort of drag spaceime along with it. And and you could sort of think of you know the matter in the universe as like dragging spaceime along with it um to define what that stationary reference frame is that not that inertial reference frame I should say.

[01:39:55]>> Okay.

[01:39:56]Yeah, this makes sense. Um, [ __ ] This has been like super educational. I wanna I want to like I want to compile some thoughts in this regard.

[01:40:06]Uh, and then I I have so many [ __ ] super chat. Okay. Um, Reverend Nate, we talked about yours for like gosh darn like 30 minutes and I'm so glad because I super enjoyed it. Dodging uh uh Pooh Bear thought. Thanks so much for the super chat. Dodging like their Morgot.

[01:40:23]Am I right gamers? Is that is that from um the [ __ ] is that from?

[01:40:31]I want to say that's from like Balders's Gate.

[01:40:38]>> Well, no.

[01:40:41]>> No. Oh, no. Elden Ring.

[01:40:44]>> Yeah.

[01:40:46]>> Oh, Molly got it.

[01:40:48]>> I'm a Boulders Gate officado. So, >> yeah. Uh Lily fan, thanks so much for chat. got paid today, so I got to pay my tithe. Lesbians for Ian. Hashtag lesbians for Ian. I appreciate it. Thank you so much. I appreciate that. Let's get a big big big big big W for Lily.

[01:41:03]God's me or God's massager of meat.

[01:41:05]Thanks so much for the five months is a cool quarry. Ian, are the locks for our chastity cages? I think the locks, if I had to guess, um I think Molly would have to speak to the artistic vision.

[01:41:18]Uh, she has great aesthetic taste, but u maybe it's for like the lock necklace or maybe it's for like our commitment to each other, you as the viewer and me as the streamer.

[01:41:30]Larry, thanks so much for the $50 super chat. That's huge, Larry. Thank you so much. Massive super chats like that are really helpful for me that they allow me to get all the stuff that allows me to both improve like the flow of my life, which allows me to stream more, stream better, stream like better rested. Um, I don't know. I I'm able to like go through my life and fix all my life problems. Uh, like recently I tried out a couple of different water bottles and I settled on this one so I can just fill it up once and then I can I can know when I've drank all my water for the day. Uh, which helps me with sleep so I don't have to wake up and like pee 30 [ __ ] times while I sleep.

[01:42:09]>> Um, crank.

[01:42:11]>> You should probably get your prostate checked.

[01:42:12]>> I know I should.

[01:42:14]>> I will. I shall. Um, it's not literally It's not literally 30 times splits. It's not.

[01:42:20]>> Okay, >> hold on.

[01:42:22]>> Is it the right order of magnitude though?

[01:42:25]>> What would be the wrong order of magnitude?

[01:42:28]Are you asking like if I if I like produce piss like x n?

[01:42:33]>> What I mean is that was 30 the correct order of magnitude.

[01:42:37]>> Uh no >> have another cancer scare. Jesus. No.

[01:42:41]No. Maybe it's on on a bad night. It'll be like three times.

[01:42:45]>> Okay.

[01:42:47]Good. That's the right order of magnitude.

[01:42:50]>> Yeah.

[01:42:53]Reverend Nate, thanks for the super chat. Uh, oh [ __ ] Cranky old Cuber, thanks so much for the super chat. Uh, no, no, no, no, no.

[01:43:05]Reverend Nate, thanks so much for the super chat. What part of the universe did the glorious roomtemp IQ come from?

[01:43:10]I suspect they use lots of lead paints there.

[01:43:15]Seems to be >> Well, there is this one place in the universe which is the coldest place not on Earth. It's a nebula. It's very, very cold. Um, if the room temperature IQs were going to be anywhere, it would be there.

[01:43:31]>> That's funny. That's That's humorous.

[01:43:32]Even I chled >> Poo Bear, thanks so much for the super with population inversion. Can we Can we get lower?

[01:43:44]>> Poo Bear.

[01:43:46]>> Thanks so much.

[01:43:46]>> There's a whole there there's a thing.

[01:43:47]There's a whole thing. Do Ian? Do you know who um Oh, what's his name?

[01:43:54]There's a guy who's really really mad at me and I don't know, maybe you. He tags me in videos all the all the time. Oh, Graphics. Do you know who Graphics is?

[01:44:02]>> I don't check my tagged.

[01:44:04]>> Oh, I think I've He's gotten mad at me, too. I think >> he's a young earth creationist who's convinced that I don't know what I'm talking about regarding physics.

[01:44:13]>> Is he the guy that like had a bunch of thermodynamics? Like he like Yes. I don't know, a professor or something at some point.

[01:44:22]>> He He's the guy who thinks that you can't have population inversions in space.

[01:44:28]>> I I think I think it was that guy.

[01:44:30]>> Anyway, sorry for interrupting. Go ahead and get >> uh Sorry, I was uh let me uh let me look through my tagged really quick.

[01:44:43]His name's Graphic. He tags constantly.

[01:44:46]Well, um I I wouldn't say probably a hundred times in the last two years.

[01:44:52]>> No, I don't see any.

[01:44:54]>> Okay.

[01:44:58]>> I wonder what ever happened to Chris. I missed that dude. Um Mary Andrew, thanks so much for the super chat. I just fed my dog a peanut butter chicken ball. I don't know anything about dogs. I don't know if that's a good thing to do. You know, good job if that's acceptable.

[01:45:13]You know, don't do that if it's not uh Pooh Bear, thanks so much for the super chat. The Old Testament says God is not a human being. True facts. That is my favorite. I think I think like the the killer reductio that I'm going to be running from now on against the anti-trinitarians um who say like the father, the son, and the holy spirit are all the same person is that indeed uh God did impregnate his own mother.

[01:45:46]Reverend Nate, thanks so much for the super chat. Uh, keeping Glorious up seems cruel. Uh, Jibus is his own father and son at the same time. Has anyone seen the entire universe? These are CTE thoughts. Yep, I agree.

[01:46:02]But, you know, you gota you got to do that to people who think that they know things, who are are who like don't actually know things and are too ignorant to allow you to like correct them. Sometimes you just got to crush them. I don't know. I think it's fair.

[01:46:17]Um, I think that if somebody knows things, then you shouldn't be bad faith with them. And if somebody thinks that they know things but are totally open to being like corrected on it, you shouldn't crush them either. I think if but I I think like the unique combination of like being really stupid but thinking that you're not really stupid and refusing to change your mind about that probably probably you have to like jolt those people out of it. Master Neo, thanks so much for the super chat.

[01:46:41]Atheist, uh you talking about a changing state, but would that still apply to a fourthdimensional being existing at all time? Like Interstellar loved the show.

[01:46:49]Well, if God exists at all times, then God is just in time. So that probably sidesteps the problem and then just like directly accepts the conclusion.

[01:47:00]Flash Perez, thanks so much for the super chat. Ian's mom is so round that she's the universe. We don't know if the universe is round. You don't know that.

[01:47:12]>> Reverend Nate thinks >> it could be.

[01:47:14]>> Or it could not be.

[01:47:16]>> How could the universe be if we're like constantly like deforming it with matter? To be fair, to be fair, it could be donut shaped like your mom.

[01:47:24]>> Oh, no.

[01:47:26]>> And to be clear, to be clear, all humans are donut shaped.

[01:47:31]>> That's not >> usually more than one hole, I think.

[01:47:34]>> That's not Oh, you mean like >> topologically?

[01:47:37]>> Topologically.

[01:47:38]Yeah.

[01:47:40]>> Okay.

[01:47:42]One of um one of one of the examples that Lance Bush uses um to to move forward in like moral discussions is he gives the example of like an alien who just goes through the universe and he wants to make paper clips um and then he comes to Earth and he's like these would make great paper clips and then he starts like crushing people up and like folding them into paper clips. Um, but you know that but for like topologically turning people into donuts, >> then they wouldn't have to do anything.

[01:48:16]>> True.

[01:48:17]>> The aliens would just arrive and be like, "Ah, donuts. I see you guys are already on the ball."

[01:48:24]>> Banger. Banger.

[01:48:28]>> They say Baldo.

[01:48:30]>> What >> would they say? ball though.

[01:48:35]>> You're right. Ah, donuts. Glad that you guys are already on the dinner plate.

[01:48:40]>> There you go.

[01:48:43]>> Reverend Nate, thanks so much for the the five Kuck Bucks. Thanks for the return on investment by bringing Quanta and Mr. Dr. Blitz up. But have you considered that your mom is the whole universe, but only for your dad? Oh, that's [ __ ] mindblowing. That's That's huge even. Wow. I hadn't considered that. very good wizard.

[01:49:03]Thanks so much for the super chat. The greatest riches are not gold nor conquest, but to be in the company of those who think deeply. Thank you, Quant, Dr. Blitz, and Ian. Thanks for streaming this and for allowing all of us to be amongst your ranks. Absolutely.

[01:49:15]You know, I love knowledge and I know Dr. Blitz and Quant do too. Um, I just love the exchanging of ideas because there's truly so much to learn and also I think a good metaphysics is informed by empirical observation.

[01:49:29]>> Don't speak for me. I hate knowledge.

[01:49:31]I'm just in this for the money.

[01:49:35]>> [ __ ] >> Wait, when did my adviser join the the panel?

[01:49:39]>> Oh, no. Drama.

[01:49:41]>> Story.

[01:49:42]>> Uh, sounds like drama. Is the drama public?

[01:49:46]>> I kind Look, I My adviser quit, so >> I can talk about him as much as I want.

[01:49:55]>> Okay, that's based. Did he get offered like a thick [ __ ] contract at like some quantum computing firm?

[01:50:01]>> He started he begun his own startup using the uh allegedly using the technology we were developing in our lab >> based. Could you imagine you're like you're you're like what like a PI or like an adviser for um for like a physics lab and then you stumble upon technology that's like so [ __ ] crazy that you actually have to go and monetize it like immediately.

[01:50:27]I'm pretty sure that's basically just what happened. And you know, he may have taken some of the equipment with him.

[01:50:34]>> Allegedly.

[01:50:36]>> Allegedly.

[01:50:37]>> That sounds crazy.

[01:50:41]>> I don't know. How much um how much would you need to get paid to immediately quit your job as like an adviser?

[01:50:49]>> He he hadn't even gotten tenure. He was on tenure track, too.

[01:50:55]Well, now he's like snorting cocaine off of like a like a hooker's stomach. So, >> well, all I got to tell you about him is that he paid for the blue check mark on Twitter. So, >> clearly he's made it.

[01:51:08]>> Clearly.

[01:51:10]>> All right. Um, if you're in that guest request box, make sure you're 18 or older, make sure that you believe in the God of the Bible, the Torah, or the Quran. And that, I'll go to the very next guest.

[01:51:22]Hey, how's it going?

[01:51:24]>> Oh, hey. Uh, I'm the twink hater from yesterday, but I'll actually debate this time.

[01:51:28]>> Oh. Oh, sure. Yeah. Do you think God is real?

[01:51:31]>> Uh, I do. Yeah. Okay.

[01:51:33]>> But I'm also a carpenter by trade, so I really hope everything you were just talking about, I'm not tested on.

[01:51:40]>> Okay. No, you won't be. It's okay. Um >> Oh, fantastic. That's a relief.

[01:51:44]>> Is there like a specific religion that you believe in?

[01:51:47]>> Uh, yeah. Uh, I I'm a Gnostic. Okay. Um, but you do think that there's like a mind that created the universe. You're not just like an idealist.

[01:51:58]>> Uh, sorry, can you repeat that?

[01:51:59]>> You do think that there's like a mind separate from the universe that created the universe. You're not just like an idealist.

[01:52:04]>> No. Yeah, I think that uh Yahweh made the universe and he's an evil psychopathic god.

[01:52:08]>> Okay. I guess what makes you think that he exists?

[01:52:13]>> Well, I mean I I am diagnosed with schizophrenia, so I have various delusions of him talking to me. Other than that though, uh I I would have to say that inherently when I talk to other people, I feel as though there's something inside of them that makes me think that there's more. And I guess I can't explain it in any way other than, you know, I think that there's something there.

[01:52:37]>> Sure. Is there um is there like some series of questions that I'm supposed to ask or like was that the punch line?

[01:52:44]>> Oh, no. I have no idea. Is this like a Steven Crowder kind of thing? Like, >> um, yeah, kind of. Uh, well, I mean, you waited so long. Are you sure? Are you sure you don't want to? It's okay. Like, I think it's like quizzical. I I'm I'm tickled even, but >> Oh, that's really sweet.

[01:53:04]>> If you if you don't uh Do you have like anything serious or >> I mean, I I I guess I don't really know what else though.

[01:53:15]I I I'm not going to even pretend to believe that you actually think that those are like good arguments. So, I think it would be like insulting to like your intelligence and the audience's intelligence for me to even like try to engage with that.

[01:53:31]>> I mean, I can't blame you there. I'm not really a very uh intelligent guy when it comes to setting up an argument.

[01:53:37]>> That's like that's like clearly not I don't know. I just don't I don't think that that's true.

[01:53:43]But anyway, I'm moving on to the next one. If you're in that guest request box, make sure that you're 18 or older. Make sure that you believe in the God of the Bible, the Torah, or the Quran. As we go to the very next guest, Alonto, how's it going?

[01:54:17]Eleanto, are you there?

[01:54:23]Eleanto, it feels like for a second it felt like we were getting like [ __ ] blow dried.

[01:54:31]>> I believe the past tense is blown dry.

[01:54:34]>> Blown dry. I got blown dry by your mom yesterday.

[01:54:40]Hey, >> up top.

[01:54:44]>> Quantity.

[01:54:46]>> What the [ __ ] Hey, how's it going?

[01:54:51]>> Hello.

[01:54:52]>> Yeah. How old are you?

[01:54:54]>> 27.

[01:54:55]>> Yep. And uh what religion are you?

[01:54:59]>> Uh basically Christian, not non- denominational.

[01:55:02]>> Okay. Yeah. What makes you think God exists?

[01:55:06]Um, so I think if you're looking at everything, there's like a conglomerate of lots of stuff. So, and then all that stuff put together would be like your evidence of that God is like undoubtedly true. So, like all your physical stuff and then do you just want me to mention a few or >> Yeah. Can I get like a specific example like what's something that you would think would be expected if God exists but not expected if God like didn't exist, >> right? I can choose one. Obviously, you got all your physical ones and experiential ones and logical ones and emotional ones.

[01:55:45]>> Can we get like a like a specific You're kind of giving like broad categories.

[01:55:48]Could we maybe get like something a bit more specific?

[01:55:50]>> Yeah, because that's like part of my argument cuz I I'll give you one. Um I I just wanted to say that like that's a part of it like cuz there's so much stuff to make it more um evident. But >> I don't know why be indicative of like God's existence.

[01:56:09]>> Yeah. So I'm a flat earth. Um >> okay. Me too.

[01:56:12]>> Awesome as well.

[01:56:12]>> But why would that mean that God exists?

[01:56:17]>> Well, obviously God is like hard to like find in the heliocentric model, right?

[01:56:24]Oh, we're the flat earth model.

[01:56:27]>> Yeah. Yeah. So, so if the earth is like flat and enclosed in a dome, it's like hard to explain normally. So, if I can prove that with an with like >> No, no, there's no need. I already agree that that the earth is flat. Where do we arrive at God?

[01:56:45]>> Right. Um, so I mean, I've got 20 written out here. If I could just pick one. Sunset fade outs.

[01:56:53]>> No, no, I you can skip all this. I agree that the earth is flat.

[01:56:57]>> Why does that mean God exists?

[01:57:01]>> Well, can you explain the flat earth model uh using materialistic?

[01:57:09]>> Yeah, I have like I have like 20 proofs for you know the first is uh what was it like sunset fade outs.

[01:57:16]>> Yeah. We also >> obviously there's an electrostatic downward force as a result of the uh electrostatic gradient between the earth and the atmosphere that causes gravity or the appearance of gravity. Anyway, you can't have gas you can't have gas pressure uh without a container. So obviously there has to be a container.

[01:57:35]Hence that explains why there's a gas pressure gradient between the uh sea level and the highest altitudes. What else do you need explained? the um the electromagnetic one wasn't it's I don't really agree with that one. It's more relative density but >> but that's that's a matter you know us good flat-earthers can can reasonably disagree with each other about whether the phenomena that I don't remember is explained by electromagnetism or the other phenomena that I don't remember.

[01:58:04]>> So I I can explain it with relative density.

[01:58:07]>> That's fine. Sure. But where do we get to god in this?

[01:58:11]Well, if I can prove this model, it it's >> No, no. I I grant the model. Where's God?

[01:58:19]>> Well, he created the the snow globe sort of world.

[01:58:23]>> Oh, that's circular. You're just saying like, okay, >> like no, how can we explain it naturally?

[01:58:28]>> And God created it, which means that, you know, God exists because God exists and he created it. It's circular.

[01:58:35]Well, this is including everything else like the physical stuff like like Noah's Arc and all the experiential people, the world.

[01:58:44]>> If Noah's Arc happened, then how did the the ruse get to Australia?

[01:58:49]>> Sorry, what's the rouge?

[01:58:51]>> The ruse?

[01:58:53]>> Rouge? Oh, wait. What are you saying?

[01:58:56]It's a a ruse.

[01:59:00]I'm not sure what you're saying.

[01:59:02]How'd the kangaroos get to Australia?

[01:59:04]I'm on to you.

[01:59:05]>> Oh, the ros are >> okay.

[01:59:07]>> Um >> I'm not sure. I haven't really delved into that one.

[01:59:12]>> Okay.

[01:59:13]>> No idea.

[01:59:14]>> Sure. But don't you think like the like the drop bears couldn't have possibly made the journey to Australia? It seems like they couldn't have crossed the ocean.

[01:59:25]I >> I don't know. But I'm I'm serious about this flat earth thing. Like I got 20 pie.

[01:59:30]>> Yeah, me too.

[01:59:32]Do you want me to read them out?

[01:59:34]>> No, I already agree with them. There's no need.

[01:59:36]>> I got a hundred.

[01:59:39]>> Rock is generating one quote from the clones.

[01:59:45]>> So if you take a water particle and it hits more on the way.

[01:59:48]>> Yeah. Yeah.

[01:59:49]>> And it's like I'm having Grock generate a million more. I have a million more on the way.

[01:59:55]>> Hey, Blitz. If you take a a bit of water and it and it drops and it hits the water and it floats there, you can't measure it with a scale, right? Its weight disappears.

[02:00:06]>> I don't know why like you're I don't know shortcircuiting when we're telling you that we are flat earthers. We just need you to prove that God exists.

[02:00:14]>> Yeah, we're just like atheist flat earth.

[02:00:15]>> You think I'm trolling, brother?

[02:00:18]>> I don't care if you're trolling. I just don't think that the conclusion falls. I think I could grant that the earth is why is the world created by God if if flat earth exists?

[02:00:28]>> Uh yeah so far as God couldn't have possibly created the world and so far as God couldn't have possibly created time.

[02:00:35]>> So >> that doesn't address the uh flat earth argument.

[02:00:38]>> Yeah. Well, I'm telling you I mean in the flat earth model time always existed which means that God couldn't have created it.

[02:00:47]I've heard you say this one, but I haven't like fully sort it out.

[02:00:52]>> Mhm.

[02:00:52]>> But you you're saying you you know time existed like before the known sort of world like you're sure you're using logic which is fine but logic's not 100% correct all the time.

[02:01:11]It is. That's the That's the nifty thing about logic is that it is 100% correct all the time.

[02:01:16]>> Like for example, if someone's walking at you from over a hill, logic would say they came from directly over from behind that hill in that direction. But they could have easily just turned and then walked over the hill at you.

[02:01:26]>> Well, so the problem is >> you'd be right 90% of the time.

[02:01:29]>> That's not a logical contradiction is the problem. So So my claim specifically is that things like logical contradictions, those are never true.

[02:01:36]They're strictly false logical contradictions.

[02:01:44]>> Yeah, >> I think you might be getting mixed up with the concept of inference, >> maybe.

[02:01:53]But you're still using logic >> like like we like you were saying about time. That's what we think about time.

[02:02:03]But, you know, you may be wrong.

[02:02:06]Well, I mean, at that point, you'd be left denying that, for example, like change is temporal, but I mean, in order for a thing to change, it goes from like a past state to a present state, which means that it's in time. It's in the past and the present.

[02:02:21]>> Yeah. Which which is normal for us humans, but you're talking about God.

[02:02:26]>> Yeah. Completely different.

[02:02:27]>> But in order for God to change, he would go from a past state to a present state.

[02:02:33]>> Yeah, I know. be talking about our human understanding.

[02:02:37]>> Okay. Sure. Do would you disagree with that? You don't think that God I mean in order for God to change there would need to be like these two states, one before and one after.

[02:02:46]>> Yeah. It it's logical.

[02:02:47]>> Yes.

[02:02:48]>> Sure. But >> our best human logic would indicate that God doesn't exist.

[02:02:54]>> We we would think that, but we don't know because we don't know anything about God.

[02:02:59]>> Okay.

[02:03:01]Talk to Beyond a shadow of a doubt through all these things >> like what earth sounds like we can know things about God.

[02:03:12]>> Well, we can we can infer it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

[02:03:16]>> Okay. Yeah. Walk me through that.

[02:03:19]>> So all the physical things of the B stories of the Bible like Noah, Noah's arc, >> what's the evidence for?

[02:03:28]>> You can go and see it. You know that's like a reconstruction, right?

[02:03:34]>> No, don't think so. Well, I don't >> This is like really awkward.

[02:03:41]>> Are you talking about the one on top of Mount Ararat?

[02:03:43]>> I'm talking about the the one that's at like the creationist museum. If you're talking about the thing on Mount Ararat, well, that one's not Noah's Ark. In fact, that's a geological structure that's younger than Noah's Arc. Also, there's zero petrified wood at that site, which indicates that this is not Noah's Arc because there would definitely be petrified wood if it was.

[02:04:03]I mean, that's a decent argument, but there I say there's a chance that there would be and it's the right size and and there's other things there that correlate with it like the um the bolts or whatever.

[02:04:22]>> Sorry. Do you think that the Noah's arc structure corresponds to the bolts?

[02:04:26]Noah's arc.

[02:04:27]>> Well, I I don't I don't remember all the evidences about it.

[02:04:31]>> Wait a minute. Hold on. I'm confused. If there was a flood and the flood was, you know, higher than the highest mountains, wouldn't it overflow the ice wall and the water would just spill out?

[02:04:41]>> Yeah.

[02:04:41]>> If true, then the Bible is false. The [ __ ] dome, y'all. Come on.

[02:04:47]>> The fate comes down to the edges, it's like a snow globe world and just fills up.

[02:04:54]Okay.

[02:04:55]>> Yeah.

[02:04:56]>> Oh, wait. So, you're saying that it didn't come down to the I'm sorry. Where where I'm I'm trying to wrap my head around this, too.

[02:05:05]>> Well, because he's one of the old flat earthers who thinks that it's like a snow globe rather than just that there's infinite land beyond the ice wall, which obviously there is.

[02:05:13]>> Yeah. I don't I don't believe >> he believes that there's a magic firmament that touches down somewhere in the ice wall. And so you could just go and knock on it if you wanted to.

[02:05:24]>> Yeah.

[02:05:25]>> Yeah. Like that's the only way we could have gas.

[02:05:27]>> What they actually think it's made out of. You know, sometimes they say it's like solid oxygen, which would, you know, be very >> volatile and explosive.

[02:05:38]>> Good thing that there's no such thing as lightning uh >> in our atmosphere.

[02:05:42]>> But but we would need that, right? To get like a a um oxygen pressure, to have air pressure, we would need a container.

[02:05:49]Do you realize how explosive pure like even just liquid oxygen is?

[02:05:55]>> Yeah. Yeah. I I don't make any claims to what the wall f is made of. We got no idea. Only ideas.

[02:06:01]>> I thought you just were you you just said where does the oxygen come from?

[02:06:06]>> No. No. I said the the oxygen um the the air pressure. To have air pressure in the world, you would need an enclosed container for it all to sit in. Yeah, there was holes or gaps out to other lands. All the air pressure would just go out there.

[02:06:21]>> It would just disappear.

[02:06:23]>> I mean, I guess like we already gave like other critiques of Noah's Arc. Um, and also like the thing that you presented is like easily debunkable. Um, do you have any other evidence?

[02:06:33]>> Fade out.

[02:06:34]>> H, >> you're talking about the sunset fade out.

[02:06:36]>> No, no, no. We grant the flat earth.

[02:06:37]We're all flat earthers here. Um, the the question that we're asking uh is like what's the evidence for God's existence? And what you said is that I mean the evidence for the Bible is Noah's arc, the structure on Mount Ararat, but we've already given critiques of this. You know, it's the structure itself is younger than the ark would be.

[02:06:56]>> So if you don't think this is evidence enough for God, how do you think the world is flat explained without God?

[02:07:04]>> What's to be explained? You know, it's just in line with the evidence, >> the laws of nature.

[02:07:07]>> Yeah. We I mean I look around I look in front of me and I see >> you know how do you get the dome?

[02:07:15]>> How do I get the dome?

[02:07:16]>> The dome always existed.

[02:07:19]>> Why?

[02:07:20]>> Because change always existed.

[02:07:23]>> Change can't create a dome.

[02:07:25]>> The laws of nature just necessitate the dome.

[02:07:29]>> Don't doesn't nature fall into chaos?

[02:07:32]>> How does it create?

[02:07:32]>> Not necessarily.

[02:07:34]>> That's just what the scientists want you to believe. We know better.

[02:07:39]>> It doesn't work.

[02:07:41]>> It does work. What are you going to say to disprove that?

[02:07:46]>> Nature can't create things.

[02:07:48]>> Why not?

[02:07:50]>> Cuz it falls into chaos.

[02:07:51]>> Why? What's the evidence?

[02:07:52]>> Nature create crystals all the time.

[02:07:54]Those are very not chaotic.

[02:07:57]>> True. That's true.

[02:08:00]>> Can't create a dome.

[02:08:02]>> Maybe the Maybe the dome's just like a giant naturally forming crystal.

[02:08:10]But then why would we see blackness at night?

[02:08:13]>> Because there's no light.

[02:08:15]>> Yeah, cuz the sun the sun went off into the distance like a baseball, >> which is what it looks like.

[02:08:21]>> The crystals that it's made out of just like twinkle with the little remaining light from the the the sun that's, you know, off in the distance.

[02:08:32]>> Do you have anything else? Do you have any other reason think the god exists?

[02:08:37]>> You mean apart from like all the >> Oh no, the drop bears got him. Arnar cy man. I didn't even get to the point where I show how nutrinos prove that the earth is flat.

[02:08:57]Obviously, nutrinos reflect off of the uh the white hole underneath the flat earth.

[02:09:05]>> True.

[02:09:06]>> Truth nuke. Um all right. If you're in that guest quest box, make sure that you're 18 or older. Make sure that you believe in the God of the Bible, the Torah, or the Quran. So that you have some reason to think that God exists.

[02:09:23]>> Hey, how's it going?

[02:09:26]Hey.

[02:09:26]>> Yep. How old are you?

[02:09:31]>> 39. Sorry, I got off the app for >> That's okay. Yeah. What religion are you?

[02:09:36]>> Um, I'm leaning to like I would go umbrella theist and then maybe lean towards Christianity cuz I think it's like that one kind of has the best evidence quote unquote I guess I would say.

[02:09:50]>> Yeah.

[02:09:50]>> Um, >> what makes you think God exists?

[02:09:54]Well, uh, I kind of wanted to talk to you about your argument from time because that one was really getting me like >> Yeah, >> that's a good one. And I've like I'm like trying to >> Mhm.

[02:10:06]>> trying to see if there's something I could come up with to like contend with it.

[02:10:11]>> Sure.

[02:10:11]>> Kind of. Um so the the best way I can think of you know your argument like God must either exist in time or outside of time and >> um >> uh it both it's like contradict it leads to contradict him being contradictory.

[02:10:30]>> Uh probably the question is uh do you think that God was always creating time or do you think he began to create time at some point?

[02:10:40]So that is the great that's the good question there. And the best way I can try to contend with that is like the universe exists in one block and God kind of eternally sustains the whole space-time block at once.

[02:10:57]>> So kind of >> arguing like Yeah. Go ahead.

[02:11:01]>> But then he doesn't actually like create it is the problem.

[02:11:05]So, >> so, okay, go ahead.

[02:11:07]>> Yeah, this is um I think probably the issue with like a model like this is that God never actually brings it into existence. It just kind of always exists at that point. Like, you'd be positing that the world is eternal with God. That they're just like eternally it's just something that's like co-eternal and like eternally sustained.

[02:11:28]>> Could he be like sustaining it outside of that? um like Sans's creation but temporal after creation or there's just like no way out of it.

[02:11:41]>> Uh no, >> I think I think with um son's I think that you're probably on the right path with like the B theory of time stuff. I think that that stuff like the arguments that I have against that view are going to be weaker. But it's like just so non-standard of a view that I don't have anything developed other than like I mean you you'd be forced to say that creation is eternal with God. You don't want to say that God goes from being not temporal to being temporal. That you don't want to say that God ever exists without creation or else you run into the problem.

[02:12:09]>> The problem arises whenever you say that there's like some moment where it's like God without creation. Then at that point you do have to either choose >> um well at that point you're forced to say that God changes. If you want to say that God always was creating, then you could end up with the view that you were describing where creation just kind of always exists as like like one big block.

[02:12:32]>> But there are problems with that one, too.

[02:12:37]>> Okay. Is this this is one of the most uh convincing arguments for you or >> Yeah, I don't think that there are great um I'm I think that there seems to be lots of big problems with the models of creation, especially when you think about things like creation of time. So, >> yeah, I can see it. Yeah.

[02:12:55]>> Yeah. One thing to consider as well, um, even on the B theory, one argument that I've been thinking, >> even if God is like eternally sustaining all of this, uh, this like block of universe, um, >> it seems like at that point it would just like flow from his nature.

[02:13:13]>> But that seems problematic because at that point, we could always posit an easier explanation by saying that he doesn't have a mind. Like whatever it is that's sustaining the universe is just not mental. It's just like some sort of like underlying like physical object that gives rise in the same way.

[02:13:30]>> I see. Okay. So, okay. So, you're that you're kind of saying that still wouldn't necessarily get you to God kind of or >> Yeah. That there would be a more parsimmonious explanation even under that view like that presumably we could say something like you know there is something eternally sustaining the universe and it's like the wave function. It's some deeper physical object. Right.

[02:13:50]>> And then if we have to compare the wave function versus God, the wave function is just a simpler explanation.

[02:13:56]>> Okay.

[02:13:59]>> Yeah. Okay. Okay. There is another thing like with that makes me kind of lean towards theism and then I would probably go to Christianity.

[02:14:09]>> Sure. just but uh like some of the moral things like uh can and I this can get a little touchy with >> you know um just like I feel like I okay let me ask you this >> I've heard your um uh moral argument for God and >> does it allow for things like does it allow for um prostitution >> something that I feel like is bad But it still allows for that.

[02:14:41]>> I don't know that sounds like a really difficult moral case. Um so I can give you like some of the considerations. One of the views that I take on things like sex is that um so one of the virtues, one of the key virtues is something called temperance.

[02:14:54]>> Temperance basically means that you're taking the right kinds of pleasure in things. That you're appreciating when you take pleasure in something, you're appreciating like all of the dimensions.

[02:15:04]So when you sit down to eat a meal, you're not just like shoving like like 200 fries down your throat, you're I don't know like stopping to like enjoy like the taste, the texture, the quality, the things you like, the things you dislike about like a hamburger. Like you're able to appreciate and take pleasure about things other than just like the sensation of it like sliding down your throat that there's like kind of like dimensions. So >> I see. I guess like one of the restrictions that I I think that you owe yourself I think that one of the things that you owe yourself is that you owe it to yourself to have good sex. I think that you shouldn't be having bad sex in the same way like you shouldn't be consuming food like just eating [ __ ] 200 fries letting the fries like slide down your throat like zero enjoyment of any of it. Um so I think I I'd have to think about that more. I'm sure that there are like lots of meaningful considerations there but I mean, I'm inclined to think that in so far as prostitution is going to lead to you having like lots of bad sex, that would be a reason to not do it. Like something that you owe to yourself to not do. Um, but then I also think that there's like the caveat of like there are some people where this is like basically their only option. So I I think that at that point like it's unverirtuous, but it's probably better than the alternative.

[02:16:30]Okay. It's okay. Okay. I got you.

[02:16:33]Unverirtuous. But in the And you're saying the alternative of like like having like a girlfriend or a partner or whatever is uh >> Well, no. Like starving to death. Like like if your choices are either like you prostitute or you starve to death, >> I I think like at that point even if there is something unverirtuous about like being a prostitute, you know, at that point you're in like a like a moral dilemma where your life depends on it.

[02:17:00]>> So in a situation like that, I think it's permissible even if that does lead to um something like I don't know like reduced temperance.

[02:17:09]>> Okay. I need to I actually I don't know what you mean by temperance. That one I have to look up.

[02:17:14]>> If you want like a good paper on this, uh, Nerra Badir has a good paper in the journal.

[02:17:21]>> I don't know how to spell that, but I can try to write it down real quick.

[02:17:24]>> N E R A uh, space B A D H W A R has a paper called carnal wisdom and sexual virtue.

[02:17:38]um where she basically develops like the sort of idea that I'm developing here which is that you have an obligation to yourself just on the basis of um like the demands of temperance. Uh you have an obligation to yourself to to have good sex to the extent that you're capable of doing so. And by good sex, you mean not not like rape or something like that? Would you go as far as that's like obvious, but um like good sex like sex that isn't like the equivalent of like shoving like 200 fries down your throat because you're like doom scrolling and you know it like gives you a bit more dopamine, the sensation of them in the background like sliding down your throat. Like there's just not you're you're taking the wrong kinds of enjoyment. What the virtue ethicist wants to say is that The enjoyment of like the sensation of the fries sliding down your throat is the wrong kind of enjoyment of food that you should be enjoying like the the flavor combinations like the presentation. Not necessarily. It's not necessarily about health. It's just about like like it's okay to eat unhealthy things from time to time. You should just take like enjoyment out of it. You should enjoy it.

[02:18:50]>> But there's lots of like layers that you could enjoy >> it.

[02:18:54]>> Yeah, that would be a part of it. Yeah.

[02:18:56]>> Okay. Huh? Ian, um I would appreciate it if you would uh use the word gullet.

[02:19:02]>> Oh, >> on the uh on the occasion.

[02:19:05]>> Sliding down your gullet. Yeah, >> there you go. Much >> appreciated.

[02:19:08]>> Gizzy once or twice.

[02:19:10]>> Yeah, sliding gizzies down your gullet.

[02:19:13]>> There you go.

[02:19:14]>> Oh, that's good. That's >> like good aliteration. Yeah.

[02:19:18]>> Well, there's there's several things, but maybe you have more people. But I mean, I would there's several things that I feel like are kind of like wrong quote unquote in my heart, but and I and that's what makes it and I know like Christianity would say this is wrong.

[02:19:32]Like I feel like Christians say that. I don't know if I could necessarily find it in the Bible, but >> um and then things like there's other things too. We can go through different stuff if you want. Some of them might be more obvious like or we can Okay. Um, also to be clear, I I think that there are going to be situations where I think prostitution is totally fine and in fact maybe even virtuous.

[02:19:56]>> Okay. Right. Okay. Clear. And and see Christianity would be like totally against it all the time. I think like >> even at the point where you say it would be virtuous, I think Christianity >> would still say it's like wrong.

[02:20:11]And I don't I don't know. I think that you're going to run into like really difficult situations if that's the stance that you take. There are some people that engage in prostitution because they're born in like I don't know like let's say you're like born in a country uh you know you're it's like super like regressive. You're not given an education. Um you know you have you marry this person who's from the same town as you kind of your only choice.

[02:20:37]You didn't really have a say in the matter. Then one day he just like [ __ ] gets up and leaves. Now you have to take care of these kids somehow >> and you're like you're all starving.

[02:20:46]You're close to like starving to death.

[02:20:47]>> What would you do if a kid was at home and he's hungry?

[02:20:51]>> Have you heard that song? Look it up.

[02:20:53]City High. That's what you're describing right now. I'm sorry to interrupt.

[02:21:00]>> Um well, I don't know. It's I have no [ __ ] idea about that, but um >> Oh, yeah. It's before your time. It was from like 2001. But there's just like situations like that where I think well I don't know if I'd say that it's like obligatory that this person does like prostitution, you know, maybe it's permissible for them to like starve to death with their children instead of doing prostitution. But if the choices are like you and all of your kids starve to death or you do prostitution, >> I I certainly wouldn't think that they've done something wrong if they did the prostitution option.

[02:21:33]But they might be like they Okay, so they're forced into it, but they still know it's wrong, right? Like I don't know.

[02:21:41]>> Yeah. Well, I mean, technically they have a choice, but it's like a very coercive choice where it's like, okay, death and war, prostitution, like >> and I I guess and then there could be another argument about why God set it up that way in the first place, right?

[02:21:56]>> Yeah. I mean, it is weird that people starve.

[02:22:00]>> Yeah. Well, and we have the money to feed them, too, I think. But >> Yep.

[02:22:05]>> Yeah. True.

[02:22:06]>> But >> I don't know. Probably some people are >> I mean, I was gonna go to necroilia next, which I think you would just probably say the well-being of the people that are still alive, but tech because technically like if if someone enjoys having sex with a dead body and the and the person is dead, it doesn't really harm the person that's dead.

[02:22:28]Right.

[02:22:28]>> So, yeah, I think that this is probably going to fall into like like a similar category where it's like, okay, you should hold kind of like a like one of the main thrusts of virtue ethics is that you should be you should take like the right kinds of like appreciation um of of sex, like its dimensions, and you should put everything in its right place that different things can fit into the into different roles of like human life. Um and that like a human corpse um I don't know to like desecrate it what it the person who suffers when you desecrate it is one I mean the dead person we we still value and respect people's desires even if they're dead >> but two I mean your virtue suffers you kind of get like a weird relationship towards like dead human bodies and just like I guess like like the human form in general if that's what you do Maybe maybe this goes back to your uh have have good sex argument or what the the point you made about that.

[02:23:32]>> It sounds like that wouldn't this wouldn't fall under that because that's one of your like tenants or or your premises I guess if you want to >> I think if I'm understanding you correctly I think so.

[02:23:45]>> Yeah. Well, virtue is in your argument.

[02:23:49]>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. This this would be like an unverirtuous act.

[02:23:53]Okay. Right. Right.

[02:23:55]>> Also, uh to be clear, the Bible doesn't outlaw I I don't think the Bible outlaws necroilia.

[02:24:01]>> Maybe not explicitly. That's one of those where I feel like Christians would know that's wrong. I don't know. That's It's a weird one. Uh the other the third one I'll give you one more.

[02:24:11]>> Sure. Go for it.

[02:24:12]>> And it this is this is like another big This is like a big one because it's um I I don't know if I should just say drugs.

[02:24:21]probably more like elicit drugs, I guess, because a lot of drugs do good for people, but um you know, because drug is under that category.

[02:24:31]>> Yeah, I think Well, I'm I'm certainly not anti I think you would. So, so probably you shouldn't say that word on TikTok because it's bad for the stream.

[02:24:40]>> Um but is there like I I I I probably my stance is on them.

[02:24:48]I don't know. I go back and forth on this. This is something I'm undecided about. I don't know if society should be like a live and let live society or if there should be like specific laws that encourage you to be virtuous as opposed to laws that allow you to like live and let live and then it's just your job to be virtuous.

[02:25:07]>> I think I think I would need to decide that before I would decide like whether where I fall on this.

[02:25:13]>> I see. Yeah, that's it's a sort of a society thing.

[02:25:18]This is actually I'm sorry. This is a really good example of inmperance. If you're like giga addicted to a substance that's in tempmperate. Um that would be unverirtuous on that basis.

[02:25:28]>> Okay. Okay. Gotcha.

[02:25:33]>> Okay. Well, I'm going to check out this uh author you told me about.

[02:25:37]>> Oh, wait. So, the the specific paper from Nero, it's available on Phil Papers. It's titled Carnal Wisdom and Sexual Virtue. Um it's a really good chapter.

[02:25:48]Okay, thank you. Um, I'm writing it down.

[02:25:52]>> Absolutely.

[02:25:53]>> Carnal wisdom and what? I'm sorry. Uh, >> carnal wisdom and sexual virtue by Nerra Badoir.

[02:25:59]>> Wow.

[02:26:02]Okay. Um, yeah, man. I I don't know.

[02:26:05]Those are like the three. the the drugs one is a big one because the other thing with it is people a lot of people are able to uh stay off of elicit drugs that they're addicted to and the the only way they're able to do that I know some I have have them in my family the only way they're able to do that is to like they claim is to accept Jesus Christ into their heart and that and I've the I guess I don't know if you take this as evidence but uh I know people that it's worked for them multiple people like they do that and then they stay off drugs the whole time forever. They're done. So they were like on them really hard and then they're off.

[02:26:42]>> So here's like the consideration that I'd probably point to.

[02:26:45]>> Mhm.

[02:26:46]>> Um I think it's permissible. So one of one of the core tenants of virtue ethics is that you should be understanding how things fit into place in a human life. You should understand the value of things because that allows you to have have the virtue of wisdom. you can make informed decisions about how risky all of your choices are, about what things actually matter. So, you're taking like the optimal choices because you're assigning things like the proper risk, you're assigning things the proper reward. Um, >> and that require that all requires you to be very in tune with what is true.

[02:27:23]>> Now, there are like circumstances where I think that you will arrive at a better life if you deceive yourself. But these circumstances are already tragedies. Um it's like a tragedy that if the best thing you could possibly do in your current position is to lie to yourself like something has gone very wrong. Um, I think that these sorts of copes, >> like a good example of this is like, okay, let's say you got like human traffked and you were getting like gang raped like every single day and for that reason like you needed to believe that there was going to be like like a hell because you needed to think that there was going to be some punishment towards these people. It was the only way that you could possibly cope. I think that that is like permissible and even like understandable, but the situation is already like so [ __ ] up to begin with.

[02:28:13]Like even if it's good for like these specific people in these specific scenarios to believe, it's certainly not good for me or you to believe assuming that it's false.

[02:28:25]>> Okay. But okay, can we both agree that we probably shouldn't talk those people out of out of their >> Yeah. I mean, if they're while they're in the situation, probably not, but after they've like overcome the situation, then probably you should bring them back to reality.

[02:28:39]>> I don't think they ever overcome it without believing in God. I'm telling you.

[02:28:45]>> I guess there's just like a lot of counterexamples to that. A lot of people seem >> Okay. Sure, sure. Sure. Yeah, you're right. There probably is. I'm sure.

[02:28:51]Well, and I would just say the sum that that can't do it without the cuz you know, you've heard of the 12 steps, right? And the first step is like believe there's a power higher than you that in the drug is higher than you.

[02:29:04]Like pretty much. I don't know if I should say the D word. Sorry.

[02:29:07]>> Oh, you probably shouldn't, but yeah.

[02:29:09]>> Okay. Sorry. Sorry.

[02:29:10]>> That's okay. It's okay. Um, but yeah. Is there anything else you want to talk about?

[02:29:18]>> Um, no, no, let someone else up if there's people waiting. Yeah, I appreciate it, man. That was a went through a lot there.

[02:29:26]>> Hey. Yeah, thanks so much.

[02:29:28]>> Uh, make sure that you're double tapping on that screen. Molly, do we have any more supers?

[02:29:49]No, just jewels.

[02:29:51]Whoa.

[02:29:55]Definitely no term.

[02:30:01]Definitely no term. Uh, thanks so much for the the subscription for the first time. Everybody's dead. Dave, thanks so much for the resubscription for the 10th month. Appreciate you. Uh, where is my where are my [ __ ] gem giftters?

[02:30:22]I can't find the list, dude. This is so sad.

[02:30:26]Oh, okay. Yeah. Uh, Poop Man Jones, thanks so much for the the gems. Slussy, you thank you so much for the gems. Lou and Molly, as always, thank you so much.

[02:30:33]Um, I'm ending stream, but if you want to join the book club, we're reading Michael Humor's Knowledge, Reality, and Value. We're reading the chapter on Dayontology. It's the 15th chapter. I'd love to see all of you there. It's discord.gg/allegedly Ian. It's in my Discord. Um, Otis, I'm so sorry. Uh, come back tomorrow. You'll be top of the list. I absolutely promise. Um, other than that, love all of you. Have a great time.

[02:30:58]Blitz and Quant, thanks so much for sharing your knowledge.

[02:31:03]>> Thanks.

[02:31:04]>> Yep.

[02:31:04]>> Until we meet again.