This apologist missed my point so hard he made it for me

Added: 2026-05-28

[00:00:00]I got a reply from the guy that lives in a wooden room and looks like the guy from Reservoir Dogs. I haven't watched this, not even a second of it, so you can discover it along with me here. It's called God is not real. I've been Logicked at Logicked. I appreciate the use of the verb, by the way. I've been Logicked. Yes, that. That's what I appreciate. Thank you. There is no God.

[00:00:19]All right, cool. Uh, you say that as if that was the point of my video was to make you think that, but it wasn't. It didn't really argue that point at all. I kind of just responded to your silly argument for God, which if I'm being totally honest, I don't completely remember what it was. Something about animals. Hello folks, I'm JP and a nice fellow named Logicked on YouTube did a clip on my five-minute God exists video.

[00:00:42]No, I don't do clip-on videos. I do the full tie every time.

[00:00:45]>> And I just want to give a quick reply.

[00:00:47]Uh, if this garners more interest, then maybe I'll do another video, but anyway, let's go. All right, I'm already not expecting a lot from that. This video that I'm looking at now is what, six, seven minutes long, something like that?

[00:00:58]That's not a lot of time to say a whole lot of value with regard to the stuff that I said. My video must have been around the 30-minute range. So now I'm expecting this to be very superficial at best. At best because that at least assumes that you're in some way engaging with something I actually said, which I know better than to take for granted.

[00:01:15]>> You know what they say, any publicity is good publicity, so I was pretty thrilled when uh, YouTuber Logicked did a video on one of my videos. Good. I like that.

[00:01:24]That's a good attitude. It implies that you're somebody who kind of understands YouTube culture. At least that you understand that this isn't anything major or personal. You're not going to throw a little fit about it.

[00:01:33]>> And I guess he wears like a mask and has like a cool red background.

[00:01:35]>> You guess? Why the uncertainty? And he's like an atheist and he's a little bit creepy, but you know what? That's show business. That's That's how it works. I will accept creepy. There are labels I would not accept, but creepy I think is pretty appropriate. It's not quite what I'm going for. I'm more going for off-putting, but if I'm achieving creepy, then at least I'm directionally correct.

[00:01:55]>> Anyway, he commented on several of my points, but seemed to focus on the man-animal gap. So, I'm just going to address a few of those issues and then just kind of step back, breathe, and just kind of point out what I think is obvious in all this. Is that fair? I mean, it doesn't sound unfair.

[00:02:10]Hmm. Yeah, I think it's fine. All right.

[00:02:12]All right. What would you do if I said it wasn't fair? Delete the rest of the video? Just stop it right here? Now, before I begin, I want to say how Logic had me really laughing when he was commenting on this awesome room I've got here. One of the best rooms we've had on the channel, possibly ever. Top five at least. The wood paneling, the wall calendar, the shaded lamp. It's classic.

[00:02:31]It's classy. I meant it when I said it and I'm sticking to it. That is one of the best rooms that I've ever had on the channel. In fact, I think it's the best.

[00:02:38]But, what I don't appreciate is that you didn't tell me the story of why you're in such an awesome room. There's got to be a story to this. Especially considering that since the last time we saw the room, it's completely changed.

[00:02:49]The wall calendar's gone, the shaded lamp is gone. You got a fancy water pitcher now and a jewelry box and a painting. Things are going on in this room. Who's causing them? Why? There's a mystery here I'm afraid we're never going to get an answer to. And that sucks. Also, how I reminded him of Mr. Orange um from Reservoir Dogs, who I haven't the slightest clue who that is.

[00:03:12]Don't worry, he's cool. Everybody likes Mr. Orange. He's one of the best ones.

[00:03:15]He spends the whole movie covered in blood on the floor. It's pretty [ __ ] hardcore. Uh may- maybe maybe instead he saw me from like one of these videos.

[00:03:22]The day he died, the people cried.

[00:03:25]Okay, that does not look like Mr. Orange at all. In fact, that doesn't even look like you. If that's you, you're an amazing actor. You can change your entire face. My name's Austin. I'm your new neighbor. Would you like your toilet plunged? All right, that reminds me of when Christopher Lambert played Vercingetorix in Druids. One of the best films ever made, by the way. 2.8 out of 10 on IMDb and that's not easy to get.

[00:03:49]All All that reminds me of when Christopher Lambert played Christopher Lambert in Highlander. It's only like 0.1% alcohol, okay? Leave me alone. That somehow also reminds me of Highlander. I think you might just look like Christopher Lambert. I might have had it wrong. Either that or my face detection circuits are really in a bad state.

[00:04:05]Might have to go in for a tune-up one of these days. Yeah, I doubt it's from one of those. Um that was like 20 years ago.

[00:04:11]Um Should I know you from those? Who are you, man? Where was that from? Are you some sort of television man? Logic was nice enough to say that I'm decent in front of the camera.

[00:04:18]>> This guy seems reasonably good at speaking on camera. A lot of people's first videos are really awkward.

[00:04:24]>> And I attribute that ability to some of the old videos I used to do. Oh, just videos on YouTube? I want to see those cuz they look fun. I would get you some views on those, but I got to know where they are first. Okay, I really appreciate how Logic wasn't going to quibble about the fact that humans are peak performers compared to animals. You may not like it, but this is what peak performance looks like.

[00:04:43]>> Like in the comment section, you could see people like arguing that like bacteria are more dominant and all this stuff. Yeah, I get that. Certain animals are better at doing certain things than we are, obviously. Okay, I'm not saying that you think this, but the way that you said that made it sound like you think bacteria are animals. Just in case, I want to say they're not. But I think it might have been more just an odd juxtaposition that made it sound weird. Eagles can see better. Dolphins can swim better. That has nothing to do with the abstract cognitive dominance I was talking about.

[00:05:11]>> Yeah, it doesn't sound like it does, really. I'm waiting for something that'll refresh my memory on exactly what happened in that video. I don't recall really disputing this concept.

[00:05:19]You're talking about what people in the comments were saying, but that's a different issue. So thank you, Logic, for not debating that. Oh, all right, you're welcome. We're like a third of the way through and we still haven't got to a point of disagreement from what I can tell. I'm getting withdrawal symptoms. You got to hurry it up. Call me a son of a [ __ ] or something. All right, still here we go. Ah, maybe this is it. Okay. There are also animals that vastly outnumber us. Why did you shrink like halfway through your video? Bro, I'm almost 40. I can't stay big all day.

[00:05:45]Give me a little blue pill, watch me swell right up again. And even outweigh us in terms of biomass. And one thing I would ask, too, is why are we only considering animals? If you consider plants, bacteria, fungi, archaea, protists, viruses, the balance shifts significantly. We are sticking to animals because cognitive dominance was my point. Okay, I feel like I got to go roll back the tape and see what I was talking about there. Or more to the point, what you were talking about that I was talking about. Let's see. Now, if you haven't noticed, us Homo sapiens, i.e. humans, are far more intelligent than the next animal, making us more capable and therefore more dominant than any other animal on this entire planet.

[00:06:23]>> Right. So, you might think that you were talking only about intellectual dominance, but you didn't say that. What you said was, "We're smarter than all the other animals, which makes us more capable and dominant, period." You did not specify that you were only talking about intellectual capability or intellectual dominance. You said it in general terms, and so I responded to you saying it in general terms. As seemingly, from what you said previously, did a lot of other people.

[00:06:49]If I and all these other people were misunderstanding you in this way, consider that that might be a problem with your phrasing. You may have suboptimally expressed the idea you were trying to express. If I misunderstood something by my own fault, I would be willing to say, "Okay, fine, I just misunderstood that, move on." But in this particular case, I think I interpreted it entirely reasonably, especially when you consider that intellectual capability or intellectual dominance doesn't mean a whole lot in and of itself. That'd be a very localized peak that wouldn't say a lot about the broader world. It'd be a bit like saying, "Cheetahs are the land animal most capable and dominant in speed competitions." Like, yes, there are localized peaks of skill levels.

[00:07:27]That's true, that goes for basically any given trait. But what am I supposed to infer from that? What kind of an argument for anything am I supposed to take from that? If anything, it seems a lot more useful to your point to say, "Humans are so intellectually capable that we are at the global peak of overall capability and dominance in the world, above all other living organisms.

[00:07:47]It seemed to me like the point of your video was to set us apart as truly distinct from the animals. Sure, by virtue of our intelligence being so high, but not that we're solely better along the intelligence axis, but rather that our intelligence blows all other characteristics out of the water and makes us the dominant species on the planet in general, which is why people, myself included, were pointing out that that's not exactly true. If that wasn't the point you were trying to go for, then I don't really understand what the point of going for it at all was. Yes, we're a very intelligent species and I would say that with regard to that one particular trait, we're the most capable, but being at the peak on one arbitrarily chosen metric doesn't really set us apart in any way that doesn't apply to any other organism that's at the peak on any other metric, and it doesn't really present any cause for confusion. There's no puzzle there, which you would think there would need to be for your video's point to hold, wouldn't you? Plants don't have that.

[00:08:41]Um, anyway, of course, certain animals outweigh us, outnumber us, or outcute us. What is cuter than a quokka, or however you pronounce that? Oh my gosh, look at him. I have no idea. I don't even think animals exist anymore. I think they're just all AI-generated. You could just squeeze them to death. By the way, that's called cute aggression.

[00:08:58]There's a Wikipedia page about it and everything. Um, this is one of those things where I think atheists intuitively know exactly what I'm talking about when I compare the intellectual difference between a human and an animal, but they just kind of want to argue the point.

[00:09:10]>> No, I think more of the problem is you just argued the point weird, but that's fine, whatever. If we're just talking about intellectual peakness, I'm more than happy to grant humans are intellectually peak, but I still don't understand what I'm supposed to get from that with regard to your argument. Like this is supposed to get us to therefore God somehow, because for some reason it's confusing that humans are the smartest, but it's not confusing that there's something that's the smartest, right? And it's also not confusing that at some point, under natural selection, there can and probably eventually will be some species where that trait in particular becomes highly selected for, making it significantly smarter than any other species before it or concurrent with it. Clearly, intelligence is a trait that can be selected for, which is selected for in many species, and all it takes to achieve something like us is it being more selected for. Sincerely, I don't understand what confusion I'm supposed to have about this. That confusion about it is supposed to be the basis for your argument for God, but the confusion isn't there, and I don't understand why it would be. But they just kind of want to argue the point because that's what they do. No, fetch.

[00:10:16]Anyway. That is what I do. I can't deny that. I like to do it. I get paid to do it. Everyone watching me probably also kind of likes to do it or at least likes the idea of it, cuz why else are they watching something like that? Yeah, of course. But I also want to argue the actual point. I try not to argue against some point that you're not making. So, I was arguing against the point that I thought you were making, and the reason that I thought you were making it was because of what you said. I just played the clip. Okay, so he plays kind of a prolonged clip here of me talking about intelligence and the interaction of that with our social nature and how these things reinforce each other and feed back into each other and enhance each other. You get the point. No need to play the whole thing. Okay, yeah. This is sometimes called social brain hypothesis. You'll notice Logic said, um, building up these complex systems of cooperation. I love how atheists just make these statements as if they're given. No. When I speak about these things, this is not speaking about them as if they're a given or true by default. The point is you treat God as a given, as the default explanation. You look at human intelligence, you look at humans being the dominant species on the planet or the intellectually dominant species or whatever, and you take that as somehow implying the existence of God, which implies that you think that there's no other competing hypothesis.

[00:11:33]In fact, seemingly that there can't be one. That all you have to do is point out the phenomenon and the answer is suddenly obvious. But it's not. There is more than one possible answer. And that's what I'm explaining to you is a possible, plausible even, alternative explanation. Because if there is one at all, your argument dies. Because your argument expects me to take a shrug as pointing to your answer to the exclusion of all others. it does not.

[00:12:00]>> And then use that to prove a point somehow? Right. The point being that there are other possible explanations and your answer doesn't just get to be right because you want it to. The point is you are in a broad field of ideas and you're going to have to actually compete to show that your idea is the right one.

[00:12:15]I'm not interested in showing you that the idea that I find most plausible is in fact the right one. I don't care what you think. I'm not making videos trying to convince you. You said at the start, "Oh, I've been logic'd. God's not real."

[00:12:28]I'm not trying to convince you God's not real. That's not what the point of the video is. The point of the video is simply to explain to you the fallacy implicit in your argument. The false dichotomy of either the explanation for human intelligence is God or there's no explanation at all. Remember, the point of your original video, as you explicitly said in the video, was that each of your five arguments point to the existence of God. Meaning, I must assume for that to have any importance at all, to the exclusion of other possibilities.

[00:12:56]So, all I had to do in my video was explain to you why I don't think your arguments point to God in particular. I didn't have to convince you of the truth of some scientific viewpoint on the origin of human intelligence or that there's no God or anything. That is not the function of the video or me bringing these things up.

[00:13:13]>> complex systems of cooperation. So, we did that somehow, someway, but other animals didn't do it to the same degree?

[00:13:21]Right. Because nature. Cheetahs became the fastest land animal somehow, someway, but other animals didn't do it to the same degree. Yeah, why would I expect them to? If there's a gradient of capability, somebody's going to be at the high end. This goes for any ability.

[00:13:37]You're bringing up something that is not especially surprising. You're acting all shocked about it and implying that other people should also be all shocked about it, and then that's supposed to function as an argument for God. But right off the bat, it fails because I'm not shocked. This seems like a normal thing that would happen under a natural selection kind of paradigm. You're going to have to propose some reason why in a natural selection view to start with, considering that's the view I hold, this would be expected not to ever happen.

[00:14:02]But that kind of limitation in natural selection would make no sense. So your argument just kind of flops. And to be clear, what I just said was not, "You can't prove natural selection's not true" or anything like that. If you're thinking to yourself that I said something like that, listen again. or even close, including like I said, in the ocean. And dolphins, as I said, who are our cognitive cousins, are some of the most highly social animals that live in complex systems called pods or communities. And they've been around for what, some 10 million years? So I guess they just needed more time to socialize, a longer dinner party. This for some reason ignores the fact that I spent an extensive amount of time talking about factors that limit other organisms like dolphins, and that could propel the intelligence of organisms like human ancestors. That's left out entirely for some reason. But evolution doesn't have inevitable results. If the intelligence of dolphins is working sufficiently for them, which it clearly is, then there's no real natural pressure for them to develop intelligence in particular further, then they won't. Any increase in something like that is going to take energy, and that's going to have to be justified thermodynamically. In our case, apparently it was justified. Also, I'll point out, you say dolphins are so complex socially, uh not compared to us.

[00:15:15]Just like we're at the peak in intelligence, we're at the peak in social behavior as well. Our social systems vastly outstrip any social system demonstrated within dolphin pods.

[00:15:25]Again, from a natural selection paradigm, I would take that to at least suggest some kind of a link between these traits, some kind of a feedback between them. I'm not linking these arbitrarily, hence why I talked about the relationship between social behavior and intelligence in my video, which you've also ignored. So, I don't think you're quite understanding the perspective I'm trying to portray to you. I don't think you quite understand evolution and what propels the development of different traits within that view. And again, I don't think you're understanding why I brought any of it up at all. Then he has a clip of me talking about how natural selection selects for different things. And then here you are shocked to find yourself a member of a species that's different from other species. Yes, Logicked, I am shocked. You talk about size and speed and natural processes that develop certain traits, and then you just throw brains in there? Yes, brains are part of your body. They're subject to selection, too. It's not like I'm just throwing it in there. I didn't choose for brains to be part of the organism, but they are, and they're subject to genetic change just like everything else. What do you expect? That I'm going to think they're exempt just to suit your argument?

[00:16:28]Selection can apply to everything else, but not to this? Hold on. Evolution teaches that intelligence is very expensive. It's not like growing bigger teeth. It takes a lot of energy.

[00:16:38]Correct. I talked about that in the video. It relies on longer childhood dependency among so many other things.

[00:16:45]And evolution only pushes for it if there's a massive payoff, according to so many sources. Okay, then there was a massive payoff. I mean, you basically said this yourself, that we're the dominant species on the planet and all this. It's clear that there's a benefit, but it's just as clear that that benefit comes at great cost and would be uphill travel towards a goal not even specified, and therefore it's going to be rare that this trait develops to the extent that it has in us. Hence, the rarity of species like us. I said this in the original video. The point you're making right now works in my favor. Here we are is the argument. So it must have happened. Well, clearly something happened. And sure, you can appeal to God as the explanation, but the mere existence of the phenomenon doesn't point to God to the exclusion of everything else. And as my example, of course, being a person who accepts natural selection, I pointed out that such a thing is entirely consistent with natural selection. And that the relative rarity of it, even among other species, is also consistent with natural selection, exactly because of the high energy cost. If you want the short version of why this would be rare under natural selection, the reason is the energy cost that you just brought up derisively as if that somehow disqualifies natural selection as an explanation rather than strengthening it as one. I don't think you're understanding the implications of what you're saying. Then he shows a clip of me talking about the weird quote that he showed that seemed not to actually be a quote. What did he get hung up on this one? Now, I apologize that I didn't give a source, but I thought the gist was a given. So to clarify, chat GPT did give this as one of the reasons for human dominance. It was used to primarily explain how humans may have taken over other uh people groups like Neanderthals, etc. Okay, the gist of it being chat GPT output was obviously not clear. Why would that be clear if you didn't say that's what it was? I can't get that kind of information from the gist. But again, my point being we likely stopped some rivals from emerging, but no other rivals emerged anywhere else on the planet. I mean, just just think about that. Well, other people groups were competition, but more to the point now, other animals are also competition for humans. And sure, their ability to compete with us may not come from their intelligence to the extent that it does with us, but that's kind of the point of natural selection. There's more than one way to skin a cat. Natural selection has no reason why we would expect competitors to an intelligence species to themselves develop intelligence specifically only as if that's the only path to take. This like exclusivity of options is not a thing.

[00:19:21]And as for why other intelligent species haven't developed further intelligence, well, as I said, evolution is about good enough. If you survive, you survive.

[00:19:28]It's not about developing any particular trait. Dolphins are doing fine. And if an increased intelligence would not be useful enough to them in their niche that it overcomes the thermodynamic cost, why would we expect them to develop it? It's rare for a reason. It is expensive. If in your niche there's an opportunity for that highly increased intelligence to really make a difference, then great. But if you don't use it, you lose it. We obviously use it. Now, bringing up the existence of other people groups which were exterminated by Homo sapiens or presumably the existence of other other people groups that were exterminated by other species of humans or other other other ones that were exterminated by even earlier human-like groups is an interesting approach considering that that's a very plausible sounding scenario, isn't it? Which if true could very well result in a scenario where between humans and other apes there's a rather large and puzzling gap in intelligence. Humans were continually gradually developing intelligence while fighting and killing the dumber ones.

[00:20:28]Appeal to the supernatural to explain the gap all you want, but clearly it's not necessary to. Nothing about the situation directly implies the supernatural. It doesn't point to God.

[00:20:39]This is the problem with God of the gaps arguments. In this case, a literal gap in intelligence. They kind of just assume that because the speaker isn't aware of an answer, they know the answer because they take their lack of awareness as implying absence or impossibility. But rarely is that actually the case. In fact, I would say never is it the case that the only conceivable or possible or plausible explanation is God or nothing. And it's really funny that you're sitting there running down the natural selection alternative by making points supposedly against it that in fact establish just how plausible it actually is. In the ocean we find these complex social groups that have existed for millions of years. Yes, dolphins, whose intelligence is compared to a two to five-year-old. I know I don't disrespect any five-year-olds who may be watching this.

[00:21:25]I love five-year-olds. I mean, I was five years old once. Yeah, puzzling over this like it's a problem from an evolutionary standpoint makes me think you just don't have that good of a grasp on the concept of natural selection. Oh, and by the way, if dolphin intelligence has been developing for millions of years and this is where it's at, well, our intelligence would have developed for millions of years before it was at the same point. Would you have found it surprising in our case to look at us and find that our intelligence was only at that level and wonder why the evolution of our intelligence just stopped one day, which just so happened to be the day that you were looking at it? Look, I'm not saying that dolphins are necessarily on the way to increased intelligence. They may be, they may also not be. You can't know that. There are too many factors involved. And again, that's part of why you would expect rarity of traits like this. There are so many conditions involved coupled with the high energy cost that it's far from simple. Under natural selection it must be far from simple. But, I am saying that if dolphins were on their way to increased intelligence, intelligence on our level, if some dolphin descendant were to have human-level intelligence, then right now today is part of the development. This is what you would see.

[00:22:32]You're acting like the ability to see intermediate developmental steps that may or may not eventually proceed to the state that you're looking for. In other words, transitional forms, which would have to exist between a lower intelligence and a higher intelligence, somehow goes against evolution. Now again, nothing says the descendants of dolphins are going to be more intelligent. Some of them may be, some of them may be less intelligent, all of them may be less intelligent. What you would expect evolutionarily is for animals with high intelligence to be a rarity relative to ones with lower intelligence and for animals with extreme intelligence to be even more rare. For every population that does end up reaching a higher level along that scale, multiple other ones won't and a lot will even have that ability atrophy if they find a niche where it's not necessary or the cost is not justified.

[00:23:21]This is what I meant towards the start of this video when I said I'm not sure where the confusion is because nothing you're bringing up here is inconsistent with natural selection and nothing you've said requires an invocation of the supernatural to explain it. You seem to expect people to share your surprise, but I don't see why. Okay, I just got to throw this last statement in for fun.

[00:23:42]And then he throws in me basically talking about the weak anthropic principle. For us to be here thinking about why we're here, we have to first be able to be here.

[00:23:51]Again, the old we're here argument, so it must have happened. No, I never said it must have happened the way I said it could have. What I was saying was you seem to be singling us out as special.

[00:24:01]In some way asking basically, why do we, the special species, happen to be the ones who are gifted with high intelligence? I interpreted you as basically saying this is some kind of a coincidence and I was pointing out that no, for a species to have that kind of thought in the first place, it would first have to have that high intelligence. It's not surprising for the species with that opinion to have the intellectual capacity to hold the opinion. I was not making any arguments with regard to origins. I was bringing up the weak anthropic principle and how it does apply to origins to relate this seeming coincidence of innate specialness and high intelligence to it analogically. I was in no way proposing anything about where humans come from by bringing that up, but you appear to have missed that. So, since you did, here's the clip. Why are we seemingly at the peak with regard to this trait or set of traits? Why do we seem so special? Well, to start with, there's a bit of the weak anthropic principle at play here. Why is the Earth so great for us to live on?

[00:24:58]Why are we at just the right distance from the Sun to survive? Why is there the right amount of oxygen for us to breathe? Why is there water for us to drink? What are the chances of that? God must have made it that way just to suit us, who were defined beforehand to be as we are. Well, that's backwards. We can't be anywhere that doesn't meet those conditions because those conditions are required for us to be there. And so for us to be here thinking about why we're here and why things are so perfectly suited to us, we have to first be able to be here. Things have to be well suited to us. So there's a 100% chance of any organism that's thinking about this stuff originating in a place where it can originate. And similarly, for you to ask, "Why is our species so special?

[00:25:37]Why do we seem so unusually smart?" That first has to be the case or at least appear to be. "Why are we so lucky? Why are we so strange? And especially, why us specifically? Why not some other species?" Well, because to ask a question like this, you have to ask it from the species that it is, not the one it's not. And therefore, the answer to why me, why us is you're the one who can ask the question. So it has to be you.

[00:26:00]It has to be us. Now, I understand that that's not exactly what you're going for here. I just wanted to mention that layer of it regardless just to be thorough because I think that this is a way of thinking that although you're not specifically saying it, at least not right now, others do. So that is what I actually said and you'll notice this is not about origins. It's about the relationship of our perceived specialness to our perceived specialness of our high intelligence. You'll also notice that the presentation of the weak anthropic principle that I gave there with regard to origins, I in no way suggested or proposed what the origin is. That presentation leaves entirely open a theistic origin. What I said was there's a 100% chance of us being somewhere we can be, originating somewhere we can originate. That's 100% necessary in a theistic view as well. If you can't exist in a place, you don't, God or no God. That's an outright logical necessity in all cases. Anything else is a contradiction. So, that's not some naturalistic point. And somehow you missed that, too. I really don't think you're paying attention. That or perhaps my way of speaking is a little too subtle and precise for you.

[00:27:07]>> Please note that I do not consider this to be a thorough rebuttal. I'll likely need to clarify some things and I appreciate Logic's overall spirit. Seems like a cool enough guy. Yeah, you, too.

[00:27:16]I appreciate the approach here. But, I do want to remind you the devil's in the details. I try to be very precise with what I say. And when you then interpret, for example, that last clip as, "Oh, this mentions the weak anthropic principle and origins, so this must be about origins." You're overlooking what was actually said word for word in favor of instead broad general interpretation and therefore missing the point. But, we all do that from time to time, so it's not a big deal. I'm saying that more as a suggestion. So, I made you a follow-up video sometime or not. Um, tell me what you all think. And if nothing else, just try to think about these points. Animals think. Okay, I'm with you. Humans think about thinking. Sure. Animals exist.

[00:27:57]Still with you. Humans ask, "Why do I exist?" Okay. You may be able to train an elephant to paint the Mona Lisa, but then you get Leonardo da Vinci to paint it, but only one of them has true insight and understanding of that painting. Okay. Is there a therefore to this or do you just want me to take that for what it is? If the therefore is supposed to be God, we're kind of still stuck at square one here. If you enjoyed this, hit that like button. Take care.

[00:28:21]Yeah, I kind of enjoyed it. Okay, bye-bye. Thank you, supporters. You're wonderful. See you later.

[00:28:44]Kill the logic.