Tohno Kylo.kg(KG clan leader) on God's existence. He DID NOT give a defeater.

[00:00:00]want to debate theism with you because uh we may agree on most of the things.

[00:00:08]>> You're not are you Catholic or not?

[00:00:10]>> Wait, the topic the topic I wanted to go on with you was um philosophy of the mind.

[00:00:17]>> Yeah. I mean look I mean look do you believe in God?

[00:00:21]>> Yeah I do believe in God but uh >> I well let me be clear. I only debate >> I'm trying to be productive here. I don't want to talk phil. The topic I talk is theism. So if you believe in God, I'm willing to critique your about.

[00:00:35]But there's contentions in the proposition regarding theism. Now all the other type of topics are ones that I don't indulge in. Right. So P, you should just give an argu if you have an argument for God, >> we can debate if that argument isn't what you sound.

[00:00:49]>> Ah, so you want to debate on whether or not my argument for God is valid, right?

[00:00:56]>> Yep.

[00:00:57]>> Yeah. Sure. Sure. Um let me let me just copy paste my argument then. Um all eyes on the side chat.

[00:01:06]>> Okay.

[00:01:07]>> Yeah.

[00:01:12]>> Yeah.

[00:01:14]>> Yeah. There are efficient causes in the world that is producing causes. Romans two. Nothing can be efficient. Nothing can be ine well what clear? Let's just take let's get clear on what God is for one. So um >> um so yeah, you want my definition of God?

[00:01:33]>> Well, I'll tell you what the type of God I'm looking for, which is just a creator of the universe, which is all knowing and all powerful. Can you prove that?

[00:01:43]>> Uh that doesn't completely um align with my definition of God. Actually, I Hello. Do do you believe in a creator of a universe?

[00:01:55]>> Yeah, I do believe in the c in a creator of the universe. But >> is it all one?

[00:02:00]>> Wait, wait, no. Let me finish. Let me finish. Uh, in my definition of God, God is something that's the first efficient cause of everything. God has maximal causal power. yada yada. He's >> is God all knowing?

[00:02:15]>> He is a temperament and he's uh I won't answer that. I won't ask because my >> You said you won't you won't answer it.

[00:02:23]>> Yeah, because my argument has nothing to do with uh God's knowledge actually. But >> it's a clarity it's a clarity question.

[00:02:31]Do you think God is all knowing?

[00:02:36]>> Um I I don't even think God Wait uh sorry please. I'm not willing to answer that because >> you're not willing to answer the clarity question invoking the term God.

[00:02:50]>> Yeah, I I I'm not even asking does your argument and tell there's all being. I'm just asking do you think God is all knowing? What are you saying? It's a clarity question.

[00:03:04]>> Uh I only define God as something that's the first efficient cause. I don't I don't really I'm pretty much agnostic on whether or not God is >> what do you define efficient cause as >> um so basically uh uh if you have read scholastics or other branches of theology efficient cause aka agent causation is basically bringing something into existence. Yeah.

[00:03:36]Basically basically passing potential.

[00:03:39]Yeah.

[00:03:40]>> Wait. So if you bring something into existence, you're an efficient cause.

[00:03:44]>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

[00:03:46]>> Okay. And do you think I can bring something into existence?

[00:03:50]>> I mean um by when I say bringing something into existence, I mean uh creating something or um sustaining something.

[00:04:01]>> No question.

[00:04:03]>> Wait. I am I am defining what bringing into existence means.

[00:04:08]>> Can can I bring something into existence was the question.

[00:04:13]>> Yeah, of course. Uh >> okay. So you think I can you think I can be God? You think I can be God in your view, right?

[00:04:19]>> I that's not not real. I I just cleared that God has maximum causal power whatsoever. That's fine. Yeah. Let [clears throat] chill chill.

[00:04:30]>> I just want to be clear. Do you think I can be God?

[00:04:33]>> No. No. Of course.

[00:04:35]>> You think I can? But you just said I can bring something into existence if what it means to be God.

[00:04:39]>> That doesn't that doesn't mean Wait. Um that doesn't entail that doesn't entail your God. I I >> I didn't say it means I am God.

[00:04:49]>> Wait. Kylo Kylo I said >> why are you yelling? Why are you yelling?

[00:04:55]>> I'm not yelling, bro.

[00:04:56]>> Yes, you are. You're saying Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.

[00:05:02]Oh, I just said I I define God God as the first efficient cause of everything who has maximal cause of power.

[00:05:10]>> No, you you said you said I Okay, so okay, you're taking God to be the first.

[00:05:14]You're saying because when earlier Okay, that's fine. Look, if you want to say, well, look, there's a distinction between, you know, efficient cause and the first efficient cause. So, you want to say what what it means to be God's the first official. I'm just getting I'm just getting clarity. You got to you got to relax. So you'd agree there can be so this is what you're saying there can be multiple efficient causes but to be God you must be the first.

[00:05:37]>> Yeah I mean um let me let me talk please.

[00:05:42]>> So let's look at premise one. There are efficient causes in the world that is producing causes and you said what it means to be an efficient cause is that you bring something into existence.

[00:05:54]>> Yeah. So basically basically something that potentiality that makes potentiality pass to actuality.

[00:06:01]I >> So you're saying there are things in the world that bring other things into the into existence. What's going to be the argument for that claim?

[00:06:09]>> I mean yeah that's pretty much evident.

[00:06:13]That's pretty much evident. Wait >> I don't grant that as evidence. I need a supplementary argument for that claim. I denied that as evidence. So come on do better than that, sir.

[00:06:25]What?

[00:06:26]>> Hello.

[00:06:26]>> Yo. Yo.

[00:06:28]>> Yeah, I can hear you. Do you have a subargument for premise one?

[00:06:33]>> Why would they give a sub argument for?

[00:06:35]>> Yeah, because I don't grant that.

[00:06:38]>> True.

[00:06:40]>> Look, unless you unless you deny a partition there, there was you're dialectically obligated to give me a yes or no unless you're denying a partition.

[00:06:47]So, the question is, do you have a supplementary argument for premise one?

[00:06:50]Yes or no? I mean, uh, a supplementary syllogism.

[00:06:56]>> I mean, yeah.

[00:06:58]>> Um, I I mean, it's pretty much evidence evident that everything.

[00:07:03]>> Is that a yes or no? Is that a yes or no? It was a yes or no question. Do you have >> Do you have a subargument? Wait, just a yes or no, then explain. But you're just dodging. So, do you have a subaru? Yes or no? And then explain.

[00:07:18]>> Hello.

[00:07:19]>> Yes. Yes or no?

[00:07:20]I I don't I don't have a Wait. Yes.

[00:07:24]>> You don't have a subargument.

[00:07:25]>> Shut that [ __ ] up, [ __ ] >> Let me finish. Let me um I just said that I don't have a formal syllogism in favor of that, but I can give an informal argument in favor of premise one.

[00:07:38]>> Yeah, let's get that on the table. Sure.

[00:07:41]Uh so if you are familiar with the principle of sufficient reason that that every contingent thing has an explanation/c cause uh that justifies premise one >> that doesn't wait hold on so you're saying >> so >> can I respond can I respond to what you just said you're just trying to take control of the whole conversation >> [ __ ] shut that [ __ ] up [ __ ] >> you said hold on okay >> I'm trying to get some work >> you a [ __ ] [ __ ] kill yourself [ __ ] [ __ ] >> Yo, Tony, you want to just mute these guys?

[00:08:15]>> Give it a rest.

[00:08:15]>> Don't do that, boy. Don't mute me, [ __ ] >> That's embarrassing. It's like Zfly came in here trolling like cringe. Um, anyways, that's why he's banned.

[00:08:26]>> None of the least, right? So, you said the argument that there are things which exist that bring things into existence.

[00:08:33]>> Is that hold on? Is that the principle of sufficient reason? So let's be very clear. I'm almost done. You're just like you're so ready to go.

[00:08:43]>> Now I disagree with the relation of what's going to be the contradiction and accepting the principle of sufficient reason but denying there are things which exist that bring other things into existence. Let's be very clear. You defined efficient cause as bring you said you're an efficient cause if you bring something into existence. And premise one says there are efficient causes in the world. So you're saying there are these things in the world which bring things into existence.

[00:09:11]What's going to be the contradiction?

[00:09:13]What's going to be the contradiction with the principle of sufficient reason being true and there being no things which bring other things into existence?

[00:09:24]>> I mean I'm my argument. Yeah. In my argument there's u I mean a causal hierarchical causal chain of sufficient.

[00:09:34]>> Can you repeat back to me the question?

[00:09:36]Love you.

[00:09:37]>> Can you repeat back to me the question I just asked you?

[00:09:41]>> I don't think you're tracking my objection.

[00:09:44]>> Uh, nah. Let me make myself I don't I don't need to go down.

[00:09:49]>> Shut that [ __ ] up. Turn up.

[00:09:51]>> Yeah.

[00:09:52]>> What?

[00:09:53]>> Wait. Wait. Is that Is that HJ? Oh, yeah. That's Hoj.

[00:09:59]>> Here's Duck. Forge. Forge. Shut up, Porge.

[00:10:02]>> Yeah. Shut that [ __ ] up, [ __ ] I'll beat your ass in some real shot. kill you. Can you back to me the objection I gave you, please?

[00:10:10]>> Our name now.

[00:10:12]>> That's fine.

[00:10:14]>> [ __ ] you you asked me to I mean uh you asked me if there >> are you sure you want to debate this [ __ ] Cuz look in the chat, bro. Look back. You sure you want to debate these [ __ ] >> Tono, these guys watch CP. I don't think you should.

[00:10:29]>> Yo, yo, wait, wait. Um so basically you are asking if there's a contradiction uh so you shouldn't be continuing >> a thing existing without right like do you also watch CP >> you're basically [laughter] >> I mean so you agree >> yeah so you agree on there's no contradiction in >> Yeahity I don't think I don't think you're ready for this type of debate >> a CP type conversation man >> I ask you what's a contradiction and the [clears throat] principle of sufficient reason being true but they're not being the type of things which exist that bring other things into existence because premise one is saying there are things in the world that bring other things into existence so I'm asking why can't the principle of reason be true because you said the justification for premise one >> is the principle of sufficient reason I'm putting a question to tellment relation there >> wait hold on a sec hold so basically You were just talking cap and this is how you perform.

[00:11:35]>> Wait a sec.

[00:11:38]>> Talk about cabbage. Nobody's going to buy your plan and gas and this this and that.

[00:11:45]>> Yeah. No, this is terrible.

[00:11:48]>> Put you in full. [laughter] >> You would lose weight, bro. You can't even track that response like >> Yeah. I mean the question definitely put you in a full I sent you a paper on um justification in favor of principle of sufficient reason basically >> I don't need a justification in favor of principles he sent >> a paper [laughter] is obviously impossible by the way >> I said we could >> I said we could accept PSR and deny that the acceptance of PSR commit to premise one being true. What are you doing?

[00:12:24]>> What I mean >> you said PSR is justification for premise one. I deny that and I inquired on the contradiction with accepting PSR and denying press one. I'm looking for the PNP there.

[00:12:43]>> You want to go [laughter] ahead obviously impossible by the way. Like what the [ __ ] are we talking about?

[00:12:52]>> Just good faith and just say look and we can talk about this another time. All right.

[00:12:59]>> Wait, I I didn't see what the PNP is pretty allegations.

[00:13:14]>> Listen [clears throat] to Amanda. I'm not I'm on their side. I disagree with them, but we should acknowledge Are you just conceded, bro?

[00:13:21]>> N I'm willing to go on. I'm willing to go on.

[00:13:26]>> Wait, bro. Listen to Amanda. Listen to Amanda. This is This is serious disgusting with the explains.

[00:13:44]We can debate that if you want.

[00:13:47]The wait the principle of sufficient reason is the justification is impossible. Don't move on to cap now.

[00:13:57]Just more CP watches, man.

[00:13:59]>> I think >> I mean >> you don't want to delay me on that.

[00:14:06]>> I'm willing to but you don't want to debate me.

[00:14:10][clears throat] >> I was supposed to debate this guy named Kylo.

[00:14:15]>> Yeah. Kylo doesn't want to debate you because wait KG nigs. Look, listen to the guy called Amanda. He's saying something.

[00:14:23]He's saying something important.

[00:14:25]The two guys, >> bro. Is this [ __ ] slow?

[00:14:32]>> Yeah, totally. You realize >> n word, >> bro. Some some Indian [ __ ] are dark enough to know by the way.

[00:14:43]>> Just call me the nonest. Uh, what?

[00:14:46]>> I I I [laughter] didn't I didn't mean that. I'm not I'm not really >> Wait, wait.

[00:14:51]>> I got them a recording. I got recording by the way.

[00:14:55]>> I got recording. You [laughter] called us.

[00:14:59]>> Listen to Amanda. Listen to Amanda.

[00:15:02]>> Can you apologize for that?

[00:15:05]>> Okay. Okay. If Sorry, I don't really have anything.

[00:15:08]>> Oh, send us money or we're posting that.

[00:15:11]I have it on recording. You said call him a [ __ ] send us money.

[00:15:15]>> You're ready to debate me.

[00:15:17]>> I I mean I I just give you a justification. If uh you need to if you really need to dismantle my argument, you have to it is your burden to prove that uh >> no I gave you a defeater. Do you remember >> what defeat?

[00:15:35]>> Yeah. Denied dental relation from PSR to premise on being true. And if the relation I [laughter] wait you didn't you didn't PSR or contingent things have one inremise one inremise one we should just inremise one let me talk in one right inremise we talking about of contingent things of contingent right/ [laughter] explanation of of contingent things in premise one we talk we bitching you [ __ ] [ __ ] you [ __ ] ass king will kill you [ __ ] do know that KG is a probably discussing [laughter] >> I think you are my favorite to actually just continue what you're saying. That's actually kind of crazy.

[00:16:46]>> You are my favorite of all.

[00:16:48]>> You are my favorite troll of all time. I mean, listen to Amanda, bro.

[00:16:53]>> I think we should conclude. How do you think? What do you think about that?

[00:16:57]>> I just said I just said wait. I just said previous one talks about the uh explanation/caus of um contingent things. All contingent things have >> I'll give you I'll give you my objection. Like I'll give you my objection once more.

[00:17:15]>> Oh my.

[00:17:17]>> What the heck?

[00:17:18]>> Yo, these [ __ ] are [ __ ] trolls.

[00:17:21]>> I'll give you my objection one more time and if you don't get it, I'm going to force the conclusion. So premise one says there are [snorts] efficient causes in the world that is producing causes. Now you defined an efficient cause as something which brings something into existence. So if you bring something into existence, you're an efficient cause. Now you said ask for a subargument for premise one.

[00:17:47]You said the justification for premise one is the PSR. That's just to say if you accept the PSR but deny premise one, there would be a contradiction. Now I inquired on the contradiction three to four times. it seems like you're not understanding why that's relevant or even what's being said there, right? So, in virtue of you not understanding that type of objection, I think it would be best either you concede or conclude.

[00:18:16]>> It's not that there's a contradiction, it's that there might be a justification from PSR to um premise one, right? So, like for example, when we talk about the light, >> this is a one v one. This is a one v one. Okay.

[00:18:30]>> All right.

[00:18:31]>> I appreciate that. All right. So, Tona, let's just hear uh I can see it. Come out your mouth.

[00:18:39]>> Be good faith, Ton. Just be good faith, Tono. Be good faith and just concede, bro. Come on. When I lose, I concede, bro.

[00:18:52]>> Yeah, you concede to the CP allegations.

[00:18:57]>> Yeah. I mean, anymore.

[00:19:00]>> Kylo, watch your CP. Cap, watch your CP.

[00:19:03]KG is a CP organization.

[00:19:05]>> We have the evidence.

[00:19:08]>> Come on, guys.

[00:19:09]>> Why are we ignoring the allegations?

[00:19:10]This is actually serious stuff, by the way. I don't know.

[00:19:13]>> Yo yo yo, I just kicked the pot. I just kicked the pot. It was >> Yo, Tony, shut that [ __ ] up, [ __ ] >> Listen to Amanda, bro.

[00:19:21]>> Nah, I'm not I'm not going to conclude.

[00:19:23]I'm not going to >> Yeah, I just made myself clear.

[00:19:28]Weird one talks about the famous one talks about the efficient cost of evision cost/ explanation.

[00:19:36]>> I know you see this. I know you see this bro.

[00:19:40]>> Yeah, I see that boss.

[00:19:41]>> Yo, Mark, I know you see this, bro.

[00:19:44]>> Y'all y to keep endorsing this guy.

[00:19:46]>> Oh god, he fought. Bro, you're actually weird. What the [ __ ] [laughter] >> bro? I'm a Catholic, bro. I don't >> actually weird.

[00:19:53]>> Hold on. Go like go back to the server.

[00:19:55]Go back to the server. [laughter] I mean, >> bro, what are you doing, bro?

[00:20:10]>> I mean, Kylo, Kylo, Kylo, is Kylo.

[00:20:12]>> Praise God. Wait, turn. Are you Are you brain, bro? Listen to Amanda. He's like telling you that these guys are horrible people. Listen to >> you realize he's >> like I said, I gave I gave an explanation.

[00:20:27]Whoa. Are you sentient, bro?

[00:20:29]>> Oh, this guy's talking to you.

[00:20:33]>> Oh, hey, T.

[00:20:38]>> Are you okay, T?

[00:20:39]>> Actually, this [ __ ] sent. I'll be honest. I don't I don't think this [ __ ] I don't know, bro.

[00:20:43]>> I I give an explanation why >> he's still talking to gone. He's gone.

[00:20:50]>> What? Wait.

[00:20:51]>> Wake up.

[00:20:53]>> Wait. Wait. Just let me talk. Just let me talk to her.

[00:20:56]>> First things lost his mind completely.

[00:20:59]Bro, >> for Yeah. For the starters, I wanted to debate this [ __ ] on on philosophy.

[00:21:06]>> [ __ ] but you're Indian. What do you say?

[00:21:10]>> India. If you're dark skin, maybe it's fine. But are you like a darkkinned Indian? Yes or no?

[00:21:16]>> What?

[00:21:19]Indians who are on the bottom of the cast like race wise, you know the race cast the darkness at the bottom