Divine simplicity is the theological doctrine that God lacks all composition, meaning His essence, existence, form, and nature are identical to each other without any distinct parts. This concept, rooted in Aristotelian metaphysics, raises philosophical questions about whether God can have real distinctions without composition, and how this relates to God's ability to create, know, and interact with the world. The debate explores whether divine simplicity is compatible with God's transcendence and whether it leads to logical contradictions regarding God's actions and knowledge.
Install our extension to search inside any video instantly.
God Isn't Real! Unless... Come debate! [7/18/2026]
Added:What is up my dudes?
How we all doing? How we all feeling?
If you were cats, I might ask you how you all feeling.
Today I spent a really long time reading um reading a book about divine simplicity.
Uh it's it was it was interesting. Um it's going through right now. The chapter that I was I was plowing on through or rather like tiptoeing on through is about um the reasons that Aquinus gives for denying simplicity or for accepting simplicity for denying composition. Composition is the thing that he's denying. Uh divine simplicity for those who don't know is the doctrine that God lacks all composition. That there is nothing there are not like onlogically distinct items within God.
um that his essence is identical to his existence, is identical to his form, is identical to his um well, I guess they want to say that he doesn't have like a species or like a genus is what I learned today. Um but is identical to his nature, is that that all these things are just identical to each other.
Um so I don't know, it was interesting. I think I I think I understand I'm starting to better grasp the way that they arrived at that conclusion.
Um just kind of on the basis of uh I don't know like the arisatilian like metaphysics that were present at the time, you know. Um 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. And with that, we'll go to the very next guest. You can also be a deist. I'm fine a deist as well. Um, hey, how's it going?
>> Good. How are you >> doing? Well, how old are you?
>> 23.
>> Yep. Uh, what religion?
>> Uh, Christian.
>> Sure. What makes you think that God exists?
>> That's a good question.
It's a question I've asked for a long time to myself. Um, and I guess I go the route of what kind of sort of I guess you might call it like an idealist type of a route.
>> Okay.
So, I guess I know it's not the only ground for like a lack of belief or atheism, but I think a very common ground for atheism is like a physicalist or materialist perspective on the universe.
>> Uh, it might be. I mean, although I think that this puts the cart before the horse, there are lots of ways to be atheist. You could be like a like a Buddhist and an atheist. You could be like a platonist and an atheist. You could be like a dualist or even like an idealist, frankly. Um, obviously like if physicalism were true or if materialism were true, that would entail that there's no God. Like, you know, if all there is is like the the atoms, then obviously there isn't a God. But I mean, it just seems like what you'd have to establish is that um like atheism and and its various forms are false. I'm not sure why I couldn't be like an atheist and an idealist. I also have reasons for thinking that idealism is kind of incoherent on its own. Um if the only thing that exists are like the mental stuff. Um, and something unique about mental stuff is that, you know, something unique about like experiences or conscious experiences is that they're experiences of something.
It doesn't seem like there's any coherent answer as to what our experiences are of. Like what's the object of our experience?
>> You know, when I'm staring at the water bottle, I'm having like an experience of the water bottle. But >> what is that of? if the water bottle is in fact just like a like a thing in my in my mind.
Mhm.
Yeah, that's you know that's a question that you know I mean it's I don't even think you can give like I guess like a scientific answer or something like that you know it's like whatever answer you do kind of formulate it has to just I don't know be kind of like like a good coh like you're saying like a good coherent sort of a cons like I don't But it can't really be like something.
It's a good question. what I've what I've like considered is um well I would I would attribute it to like God the mind of God um in some sense and I might call it like almost like a commu like some form of communication uh by God like uh I don't mean to like appeal to the Bible as an authority But it's I find it pretty neat when the scripture says um that the world was formed by the word of God. Um and I I think that's I think like communication is interesting because you have say you have minds. I'm I'm like a subjective idealist. There's like analytic idealists. They would say that even individual minds don't really exist like distinct unique minds like me and you. I would say they do.
I would say they're finite.
And I would say that the world did exist and does exist whether or not like you and I exist.
So my main route toward idealism would be I mean there's two routes I've noticed that me personally I'm not I haven't read a whole lot but it's the problem of consciousness is one. I'm sure you're familiar with it.
And the second would be the irreducibility of I guess space, time, and matter.
Um, are you familiar at all with like um Bradley or FH Bradley?
>> Like Bradley's Regress. Is that Bradley?
>> Mhm.
>> Uh, yeah. I'm familiar with Bradley's Regress. That's basically all I know about him. But I can't help but notice that you just like didn't answer my question at all. Do you remember what the question I asked you was >> or were you like kind of not listening to it?
>> Well, I think it's I think it's a it's a form of communication by God like an instantiation.
>> What do you think my question was? I just want to make sure that you're like listening to it.
>> Like what is the water bottle? If it feels like >> what's the experience of like what is the object of the experience?
>> Like the word of another mind.
>> The word. Okay. How is the word of another mind able to represent itself in my mind in ways that make it seem like spacio tempmporal?
I think spatiality, temporality are probably seemingly um like fundamental properties of I might be wrong but fundamental properties of subjective experience or mind or spirit what what you whatever you may call it.
>> Sure. So you're saying that these things are necessary in order to have experience?
>> Yeah, they were like maybe one and the same.
>> Definitely not. Space time is definitely not the same thing as experience.
>> Well, are you like >> for example, I think you can like experience things that don't involve I don't know. They're not like directly like spacio temporal.
>> Are you pos are you positing um like an absolute external non-mental space time?
>> Yeah, I think that there's like a spaceime that exists independent of our minds, >> right? So that would you would have to get you know we'd get into the question of like what you know the nature of those things like the reducibility of them to something >> but we very well might be able to reduce it to something like the wave function.
In fact, there's a really good view in terms of um I don't know like like ongoing metaphysics called wave function monism that attempts to reduce everything physical to one quantum system um one big quantum system which would just be identified with the wave function that stretches across the entire universe. So because the wave function is just a vector in Hilbert space things like spacetime would be emergent from ultimately the wave function And do you think those whatever you know I'm not um fluent on that type of literature but do you think whatever it is you're positing or that some researchers or scientists have like thought of do you think there you know it's the question of um why why I brought up Bradley is because Bradley kind of put it in his work um appearance in reality he he is called appearance in reality he talks about um relations, right? And that's I think that's kind of like Bradley's regress, but he he talks about um I mean he he talks about, you know, John Lock's like primary and secondary qualities.
>> Uh no.
>> Well, okay. Well, he I don't know if he was the one that like coined the idea, but I think he might have been pretty.
>> Is this like the real and nominal essence stuff? No, it just has to do with like an object's properties and like what is primary and what is so like color.
So like would color be like intrinsic to an object?
>> Oh uh no. I think we have good reason to think that all of these things are like relational.
>> Mhm.
>> It's it turns out that um all the things that we thought were like intrinsic properties end up being relational properties.
>> Right. Right. So that's exactly where Bradley takes it and he takes it so philosophers thought at one point like well we have these things like taste and color and odor and etc for like primary or secondary qualities. So they're not quite like the intrinsic prop, you know, they're not as real as say the size or the mass or the shape of a of an object, right?
>> Um, sure. Yeah. That they're like in some sense emergent. Although I frankly have no idea how this is going to get us to God. We're moving like way too slow.
>> Well, so you were arguing for like an absolute external non-mental. say idealism were true, why would God follow from that?
So if the mind is um or or if the mind is almost if the if the external world can't be said to be non mental in like all form and fashion whatever mind seems to become fundamental now can the question is can mind, can consciousness, your consciousness, my consciousness be broken down, reduced into parts, or is it more like a unified whole, the one thing we know intrinsically from the inside and have direct knowledge of its nature. I would tend to agree to fall into the latter. So mind is this almost I mean seemingly irreducible thing that we have direct knowledge to and we can consider reasonably as like a fundamental as opposed to some kind of like matter you know because we we've been we've been breaking down matter for the past you know hundreds maybe thousands of years trying to ask the question and what do we reveal structure relation parts and pieces, you know, and there's arguments for maybe a question, but I think it's fairly reasonable. Well, what about mind? What about consciousness? I mean, I have direct access to it. I can't really picture my experience being this thing that is like multi-arted.
like if I just took these two parts to part then I wouldn't have it. It's more like and this is this is obviously anecdotal. This is experience but I'm just that's kind of what what I've have for you today but um >> yeah I think that this probably entails absurdities. So if you're just to be clear to track your position correctly you're saying that you think mind is simple that you think like consciousness is simple that it doesn't have parts.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Would you say that your knowledge is intrinsic to your mind?
>> Um, no.
>> Okay. I take that I take that as a reductio. Right.
>> Wait, wait, wait, wait. What is What do you mean exactly in knowledge? Like >> just I don't know. The the beliefs that you have that are true and the fact that you believe them is explained by the fact that they're true. Like I think I didn't know I think I didn't know redness you know at the time of my birth let's say you know but >> I have no idea >> how what that would have to do with the question then you know it then you would say that well you don't have that like you simply don't have that knowledge then >> yeah I think there is some kind of knowledge that's like intrinsic to >> is there exttrinsic knowledge mind exttrinsic to mind Well, like yeah, like I mean you you come into the world and you haven't seen um like humans can't see certain wavelengths of light, you know, and as much as you try to explain ultraviolet light, for instance, a a type of a light, you know, you you won't ever get to like know it. You know what I mean?
>> Yeah. I'm asking about like your set of knowledge, like the things that you know. Like I know that 2 plus two is four. Um you know, I know Uh, I know that penguins eat fish. Is my knowledge that 2 plus 2 equals 4 intrinsic to my mind or is that exttrinsic to my mind?
>> I'm not sure. I mean, I'm not sure exactly what that means.
>> Does my knowledge that 2 plus 2 is four, like if I was the only thing that existed, could I still know that 2 plus 2 is four?
I mean, I think you would have to be taught it, but sure.
>> Okay. Could I still know that I don't know, like penguins eat fish or um maybe Yeah. Yeah. So then those things are intrinsic. But if my if my mind is simple, then that means that the piece of knowledge that penguins eat fish is just identical to the piece of knowledge that 2 plus 2 is four. But these things are obviously not identical. So the mind can't be simple. It needs parts.
>> All right.
I mean, I I think it's a bit of a good question. I wouldn't say like, you know, I'd have to think about that for sure. I don't think it answers the I don't think like like I said I mean I don't think um it's like I've never if I've never seen penguins eat fish it's like I maybe don't have that experience but because one day I see penguins eat fish it's like a part wasn't added necessarily to my mind but I mean I experienced some I mean it's a good question for sure if that's kind of what you're getting at.
>> Um yeah. Well, yeah, in a sense, right?
I think I think that kind of there does seem to be a part there that it's not it's obviously not like a like a like a physical part on idealism, but there's going to be like some new thing there that's distinct from the other things there.
>> Well, it's interesting because I mean, think about it like this. we encounter a new species, right? Let's just say um >> uh we have all these previous abstractions of like knowledge of different species like legs, you know, so this thing has legs. It's like you you encountered a new thing, but you also encountered a bunch of old things maybe ordered >> in a different way or something like so.
It's it's an interesting question. I can't say like one or the other right now, but >> sure. Um, do you have anything else?
>> Um, well, I guess I'll just finish like so if we grant the mind was simple.
Let's just say let's just say the mind is simple.
>> Idealism was true.
>> Um, I would take that the external world does in some sense exist as well as my mind.
um and that it exists apart from me whether I'm here whether I'm not you know before I was born before all human life was born I think the world itself is kind of not grounding ground grounded like we were talking about spatial relations temporal relations material relations whatever it's unless you take relations to somehow exist without ratada you know that's a position know some but um >> so I think mind and if my mind didn't if if none of our minds um need to exist for the external world to exist I would it's just like an abduction abductive sort it's not I'm not pulling out like proof for you but >> sure >> I would say like it's reasonable to maybe infer there's a mind responsible for the the universe, some sort of divine mind, I guess you could say.
>> Sorry to jump to the magic part, but >> No, no, that's okay. Um although this seems to >> you for Okay. If if what the claim is is that all there is is mind and we're saying that mind is simple. I don't know. Are you would you be like special pleading for God's mind? Would you be saying like God's mind is not simple?
Otherwise, you just kind of I think that I think that this probably proves more than you want it to and you kind of end up with like somewhat something of like an existence monism where um you know there is no distinction between you and me like we aren't distinct beings or something.
>> I would say we're like distinct instantiations of the same substance which is like the god like I would say we're pretty similar. I wouldn't say we're like have the same all power and all whatever knowing as God, but I think our spiritual self is almost like a similar substance to that of God, you know? I mean, >> but would you think would you say like God's mind is simple?
>> I mean, because we're right, we're talking about simple as it relates to like the physical like not composed of parts.
metaphysical as well like you um I take simple to refer to like three different categories of thing. There's obviously like the physical parts um you know you can be made of physical parts but then you can be made of like metaphysical parts like you could be composed of like um you know like a like an essence and then like an existence an active existence that's distinct from the essence but those aren't like physical things those are metaphysical things.
I would like to say it's simple. I mean, I would like to say that like mind itself is not composed of things you can separate and then have this non-mental stuff, right? That you put together and all of a sudden you get mind. You see what I'm saying? Kind of.
>> I I am. But then that seems to commit you to the absurdity that all of reality is simple because all of reality is mind and mind is simple.
I would say it is probably simple and the complexity I mean >> this view is like obviously false in like a trillion different ways by by this logic like I would be identical to you um like numerically identical to you like there is no distinction in us at all that any any attempt to appeal to to establish that we're like distinct individuals like you know that would be identical to both me and you, that I'm identical to the Eightful Power, that all these things. Like, it's it's just like a like a definitely false view.
Like, that just can't be true.
>> Okay. Well, I didn't I guess I didn't I guess I don't know. I hopefully I don't know. I guess >> that's okay.
>> All right. I didn't mean to like deflate you or whatever, but I just think that that view is like it's like the sort of view that just couldn't possibly be true.
>> Mhm. On the basis of like the mind being simple, therefore like the no capacity to like distinguish anything.
>> Yeah. Yeah. You collapse into a view called existence monism. if you want. Um I don't know are you familiar with the Plato encyclopedia, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy?
>> Uh it's like a website, isn't it?
>> Yeah. Um there's a great article written by arguably the the greatest current living metaphysician uh Jonathan Schaefer. Um and uh it's there's an article titled Monism written by him. Uh any there's a section of it that goes over existence monism. Um, and I don't know, just like a like a variety of reasons to think that it's false.
>> Well, wait, let me ask you a question.
Do you not think that the same problem applies to some kind of reductive physical position?
>> No, cuz I think that the physicalist would state that all these things have parts that there are like lots of parts.
>> So, infinite amount of parts, right?
>> Not necess It depends what you mean by infinite. Like they might want to say that there are some things that are simple like maybe there maybe there are like certain particles that are indivisible and then those indivisible particles >> build up things that are divisible. But >> you were talking before about like some kind of wave function being like the fundamental.
>> Yeah.
>> If that's what all everything reduces to, >> right?
>> You'd say that that's what everything emerges from. But even this is going to have distinctions in it. For example, it's going to be uh distinct at uh different moments in so far as the wave function evolves in accordance with something called the Schroinger equation.
Um so it's all reducible to this thing called the wave function.
>> Mhm.
And now you have how did you get to the distinctions part?
>> Uh because things are going to be different at different times. Um I will also say uh h I think that I probably hold to something like uh I probably hold to some sort of like universal composition. So I think that you can make an object out of any existing object and that's like a like a valid object. Although a lot of objects made that way won't have any utility. So >> wait, is this like myology at all?
>> Yeah, this is myology. It's a myological stance. It's like myological is I think it's called myological universalism maybe.
>> Right. Right. The opposite of nihilism.
>> Yeah.
>> So you would take you would deny like myological nihilism.
>> Uh yeah. Yeah. I think uh I think I exist. Yeah.
>> Right.
That's that's fascinating.
>> Or um I don't know if it's called universalism, but it's called unrestricted. I think it's nice and convenient to take that position, you know, because that's how we feel like, oh yeah, you know, I think se several but I mean when you ask the questions, okay, is you know, I guess you need to cash out some kind of a way to explain how it's all one thing without like I mean is the one thing it all reduces to partless or does it have parts?
>> It has parts. It is a subquantum systems.
>> So >> there are quantum systems entangled with quantum systems. Yeah. But um you know this is another thing that's outlined in the monism view. Uh this is called priority monism distinct from existence monism. So priority monism holds that the fundamental thing is going to be the sum total of all of the things. Whereas a lot of people reason from holes down to like the parts that compose them that things depend on their parts. for existence. And this might be true in some cases, but I hold that everything is ultimately dependent on like the sum total of reality.
>> Can you can you just repeat that real quick?
>> Yeah. The view is called priority monism. A lot of people will hold that um like intuitively composite objects depend on their parts.
uh but I think it's I think that that might be true in some cases but ultimately I think that these composits overall um I think everything is going to depend on the whole quantum system there are certain properties of the quantum system that simply uh cannot be reduced to any individual part of it >> for example like entanglement >> so let's just take like the classic example of like a chair right a chair could be said to be some kind of a I don't know a unit, right?
>> Would it be like a >> like an object? I guess composite object.
>> Yeah, it would be like an ordinary object. Yeah.
>> Mhm. Would you like ascribe any sort of fundamentality or essentiality? Essentiality or like realness to that as like a unit of the universe like the chair? Are >> you asking like is the chair universal?
Maybe >> I think most objects most like ordinary objects are probably just things that we've come up with conceptually >> that when we have like a like a word to designate specific ordinary objects, it's because there's like some sort of like utility in picking out this object.
>> But now you you think this framework changes as we move scales like down smaller?
>> No, not really.
So if the chair is just kind of like a conceptual thing, so what do you think is not the conceptual thing?
>> Oh, I'm I guess I'm confused what the question's asking like in terms of like concrete objects or in terms of like their like the categories that we place them in because I think that like the underlying like atoms there exist. I just think that we place them into like the chair arrangement because they have some sort of like arrangement to them that we recognize as being chairlike. I don't think that there's like a chair essence that they embody or something like that. So the question is like what makes you stop at so you go from chairs to like chair legs and arms and a back >> to the wood to the molecules that make up the the water and whatever and the fibers. What makes you stop once you get to atoms? Cuz I mean clearly in like modern quantum physics the idea of like atomism and like that everything is like these fundamental indivisible particles is kind of like an oldfashioned perspective.
>> Oh we should probably differentiate between like fundamentality in quantum physics and fundamentality overall like in metaphysics.
um these seem to mean different things where fundamentality in physics seems to mean something like okay what are the things that you can't split apart like that's what fundamental means in physics whereas what fundamental means in metaphysics is like what are the things that are ungrounded >> what are the things that are ungrounded >> right or grounded in themselves in a way >> uh no grounding is an explanatory relation and you don't want to say that a thing can explain itself because that's not an explanation.
>> So if it's ungrounded what does that mean? What does it mean?
What is ground to >> uh yeah ground is something like a metaphysical determination relation. So um there are certain things that produce other things. Um, but these things can be broken up into like causal production and non-causal production. Or maybe a better word to use is like accounting for that. There are like certain things that account for other things. Um, why they exist, why they are this way, uh why they >> um >> like the parts of a chair to the chair.
>> Yeah. Uh you might want to say that there's like a relation there between part and whole, but whether the individual atoms depend on the parts or whether the parts depend on um the the whole is uh subject for debate. Mhm. And then I guess just like do you have did you mean to treat were you treating Adams earlier as like the like the ground?
>> Metaphysically or physically.
>> Either metaphysically.
>> No, I think that the metaphysical foundation is going to be like all of reality.
>> Okay.
And is reality contain like parts and distinctions?
>> Yeah.
>> So is reality >> like what is that relationship like between the universe and then the parts that it's made of?
>> Composition like the universe is composed of those parts. Is there one that's prior?
>> Prior in what sense?
>> Um, more fundamental? I don't know.
>> Uh, fundamental in terms of like physics or metaphysics.
Well, like say like um the Milky Way galaxy or like the our solar system at one point didn't wasn't a wasn't a thing, right? Like it wasn't in time.
>> Yeah. There are times at which it doesn't exist. Yeah.
>> So, um but I'm also an eternalist. I don't know if this is the direction that you're going in. I think that all times are actual. They just exist at like different times. I think like kind of the entire block timeline exists.
>> Mhm.
>> Right. Do you think um how do you generate like distinctions between time?
>> Generate distinctions like how do we identify when there are different times?
>> Well, like what does it mean to say there's like time here and then a different time over here? just that from some particular reference frame that there's like a world line that runs through um and that the Oh, okay. Okay, this is going to get into like a lot of like technical physics stuff, but um I think basically what it means is that the light cone um of this one thing uh is going to be like subsumed by the light cone of another thing along like some uh some sort of like inertial reference frame. But I don't know. I'm I'm that probably sounds like >> I guess I'm asking do you think like there's individual slices of time >> uh relative to specific inertial reference frames? Yeah.
>> Right. And do you think there's like a unit or do you think it's like infinitely divisible?
>> Um I think it's too early in the game to know that. I think that that's still an open question in physics >> because I find personally I find it like hard to take hold of something that's like yeah I mean I guess can't like to say it's infinite like if I take a slice of time and I finally say well here's a unit of time that we say is like a time slice but you know my friend comes along and he's like oh you know there's there's things in there you know like there's different slices within that you know I'm like okay I guess I I lost, you know, I don't know. Like, and then he comes out and says, "Well, no, it's like this." And some other guy comes in. It's just hard to grasp that as some like reducible fundamental, I guess, is where I'm coming from. But, >> oh, um, I mean, we still have to clarify between like when you when you're asking like reducible when you're talking about it in terms like reducible or fundamental. I mean maybe you want to say in either case it's going to be like a moment and whether or not between any two mo the real question where there's game is whether or not between every two moments there's like some further moment. So between like this moment and this moment >> obviously there were moments in between that. Um, but there's a question of whether or not there's like moments that are irreducible. But even if there weren't even if time is indeed continuous, there are still going to be like moments, but the moments are going to be with respect to like some inertial reference frame.
>> Yeah. Or like kind of like ungraspable by the human mind, I would say. Right.
I mean the continu I was just researching late recently like the continuum and how I mean there's different actual takes there's like an entire foundation of math that doesn't use um doesn't consider like infinity you know I was looking into calculus and like um I I don't know much about math but um like.99999 um infinity is just the same as one.
>> Mhm.
>> You know what I'm talking about?
>> Well, yeah. It's because um there is there is kind of no such concept that this is like a shorthand that numbers need like determinant values and just like point zero point with like an unending series of nines that doesn't have a determinant value.
>> The determinant value that this needs to be shorthand for is just one.
Well, right. That's what was I was researching about. But, um, it's very interesting cuz there's, like I said, there's like entire, um, foundations of math. I think it's called constructivism where they don't take any they go or finitism or constructivism. I think either of them, but they don't take those to be like useful. I mean, it's like a different branch, but >> yeah, I have no idea. Have >> you heard of constructivism?
>> Uh, I haven't looked too deep into it, but we're pretty far from the God topic.
So, I think I'm probably going to move on to the next guest.
>> Hey, thanks so much for coming on. I appreciate it.
>> Make sure you're double tapping on that screen, sharing it with your friends, and all that good stuff. If you are in that guest request box, if you want to debate the topic, you got to be 18 or older. You got to 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. And with that, we'll go to the very next guest.
>> Hey, how's it going?
>> Hey, how's it going?
>> Yep. How old are you?
>> Um, yes, >> I'm 26.
>> Yep. And what religion?
>> Orthodox Christian.
>> Okay. What makes you think that God exists?
>> Well, I was curious. So, you're making the assertion God isn't real. I was just curious what your basis is for the assertion.
>> Yeah. Um, God doesn't like a like a transcendent mind doesn't seem like the right thing to be the ultimate being.
That if there's like this transcendent ultimate being uh then indeed uh it's going to have to depend on its parts because it has like essential parts. Um but you know that would mean that it's not ultimate. So instead it just can't have parts. Uh something known as like divine simplicity. Um but then that would make him also not ultimate because then he would be dependent. You know God's God knows my actions because I do them. So then you know my my actions are the ground of God's knowledge of my actions. But if God can't distinguish between his knowledge and his existence then his existence would depend on my actions too. So it just seems like you run into problems. It doesn't seem like the mind is like a transcendent mind specifically is the right thing to be ultimate.
>> Interesting. So you think that divine simplicity?
Okay. So you think that there can be distinctions? I mean it's interesting in in orthodox Christianity we have the uh essence energy distinction. So we do say there is distinction between the aspects of God you could say or between his actions which is different from the Catholic perspective of divine simplicity. Um, but I mean you're saying that makes a creator impossible if ba okay based on that doctrine. Um, but you think any type of god isn't possible or just the Christian god specifically?
Like you don't think you you think you can assert that there's no possibility of a creator?
>> Yeah. Well, I think like a transcendent specifically a transcendent ultimate mind. I think that this can't be because mental states are dependent on lots of things lots of in lots of cases.
>> So, but if it's possible that there is distinction between God's knowledge and his transcendence, let's say, then I mean why would that be impossible?
>> Yeah. Because I think in the case specifically of a transcendent ultimate being or a transcendent being that um any being that's distinct from like all of reality, well, they're going to have essential parts. There are certain like metaphysical parts that make them what they are. Uh and it's going to depend on these parts for its existence.
But I think you agree, right, that I mean pretty much every Christian doctrine would would believe in some sort of divine simplicity. So you're not you're not dealing with parts in that case.
>> Sure. Well, but then if if the claim is that God lacks parts, that God is divinely simple, then there's just a bunch of ways in which God uh either like can't create or can't know anything. So for example, um in order for in order for something to take an intentional action, you need to have an intention and then your action is grounded in that intention. But that would require a distinction between the action and the intention.
But the the action is also just going to be like intrinsic to you. So >> um yeah, I mean I think I think what's nice about orthodox theology is that we would say that the action is distinct from the essence itself.
>> Do you think that the act is intrinsic to God? Like did God's energies exist even if like if God chose not to create would his energies exist?
that energy of creation wouldn't exist.
>> Energies at all. Would the energies at all exist?
>> Uh yes.
>> Okay.
>> So you have etern some eternal energies and some energies that would be um that would begin have a beginning I suppose.
>> Okay. I think how it's understood.
>> Sure. So then you would say that his energies are intrinsic to him.
Um, I don't know if I'm fully understanding that term, but it would at least be distinct from his essence.
>> Yeah, I I think it's like kind of difficult to cash out like intrinsic versus exttrinsic, but I think like the good rule of thumb is like if this was the only thing that existed, what else would be there? you know, if I was the only thing that existed, well, I would still have like some sort of like mental experience, you know, I would still have um desires and things of that sort. Um where if God's energies are would still be within him even if nothing else existed. So, if the only thing that exists is God and his energies exist, well, his energies need to exist within him. But then that means that you have parts in God because there are things that are intrinsic to him that are onlogically distinct.
Yeah, I think so. So, it's my understanding is that the the idea that it's impossible to have distinction without separation is like an arisetilian model, but is not necessar like you don't necessarily have to have that model. Like in Orthodox Christian theology, the understanding is that we do have distinction without separation, which is weird, but it's sort of like um I I guess you could say, well, you know, why wouldn't it be possible? Yeah, maybe in like the physical world, uh you have you you can't have distinction without separation. Um but we would say, well, it is possible with a you know, a transcendent god. So the question is whether or not you can have real onlogical distinctions without having composition to which it seems like no right like obviously if something has two different distinct onlogical things intrinsic to it then it's composed of those two distinct ontological things.
>> It's only this is the move that the toists make. They'll say that, you know, there are distinctions, but the distinctions aren't actually in God's ontology. They're only in our mind. That our mind imposes distinctions.
>> Um, but if you're saying that there's a real ontological distinction, then that means that there just is like two things within God that are not the entirety of God.
Well, I think a distinction is you can identify um two things, but you don't necessarily have to say that those that's a composition.
If indeed the distinction is like between two different onlogical items, then that is a composition. But if instead what it is is like different senses referring to the same reference, you know, like maybe you want to say God's love is identical to his knowledge or something, but actually what both of these things are is like some way of understanding his substance, but it all refers back to the same substance.
>> Well, in that case, it's fine because these are just like conceptual distinctions.
>> They don't map on to some sort of like ontological distinction.
Right.
Only conceptual not only nominal >> a nominal distinction, we would say it's a real distinction but not a distinction that necessitates um a composition of those distinctions.
>> Yeah, that that just seems to be like straightforwardly contradictory. Like what it means to have parts is that there's or proper parts, you know, parts that you're not identical to is that you know there are things intrinsic to you that are not identical to you.
Yeah, I guess I could see that. So, if there's two things that are not identical, um I Yeah, you might be inclined to call them parts, but um Yeah. So, you think you think it would be impossible to have distinction without composition would be your position?
>> Yeah. Real distinctions about like things that are intrinsic to the being without composition. Yeah. I think that that's kind of what composition is. It's just when you have you you are composed of parts when there are things that are intrinsic to you and there's like an onlogical distinction between them.
That would be that would be true for all created things, right? Anything that we see in the world that's observable. Um, but I suppose you could you could say theoretically, what if there were this thing that had distinction, but it did not imply that there was a a composition like could there be such a thing?
>> I think it's analytic. Like what would you take parts to be or like how would you define composition in an instance like that?
>> Well, we would say there's no composition, but there is distinction.
Like you could say, you know, in within the trinity distinction between the persons but not a but these are not uh composite parts of a whole thing.
>> It's distinctions within the same >> um I don't know what you would call it the same overall subject or something.
>> Sure. But just to get clear when you say composition, what are you referring to?
Like what do you think the standard for composition is?
composition being uh I think it would apply separation or that you could sort of section off um parts or or remove parts or parts that are adding up to a whole but we would say you can't view God like that as sort of these parts adding up to a whole but you can distinguish between different subjects whether you can distinguish the action from the essence but we wouldn't say it's uh these are like composing um like you can't uh view it as a composition or or you can't view the the trinity as a composition but you can distinguish the persons within the trinity or or yeah distinguish uh between his actions let's say but these are not parts of something okay well but you would say that you couldn't account for the entirety of God if not for both his energy and his essence So it seems like in that sense you would say that God just adds up to like the composite of his essence and his energies.
Um it's an interesting rebuttal. I have to think about that.
But I mean overall I think it's interesting that your reason for not believing in God would be would boil down to I don't think that you can have uh divine simplicity without composition.
>> Yeah. I think the ultimate being um I don't know that's I this is why I lean towards a view called priority monism that I was talking about with the last guest which is that I think like to to have like the fundamental thing like the independent thing. I think that it's either going to need to be uh something that's simple or something that's like all-encompassing otherwise I think that the part whole relations get weird. So because you're saying that God is not all-encompassing, that means that he needs to be a simple being. But then I think that that leads to absurdities.
>> I know there's a >> I know it's a it's a long history of of theological thought on on how you can have distinctions without composition because that's a huge point of disagreement between like the Tomas Catholic position and the Orthodox position cuz I agree. I think it is weird that you know they say that the trinity is distinct you know and any distinction they say is nominal. I feel like that doesn't really um it leads to some bizarre things where then you can't even distinguish between the actions of God that you have to say that his wrath is the same as his mercy yet it kind of boils down to some of these weird contradictions.
>> I agree. So at least in in the orthodox position we assert and I wouldn't be very good at you know putting forth the whole argument but at least asserting that you have these distinctions um with regard to his actions uh distinct from his essence and then the distinctions between like a real distinction. we would argue for a real distinction. Um, but I I would agree it is sort of a very in the weeds uh discussion. But >> yeah, it's fine. Um, I can give you I I think um maybe a discussion that will be like more like less in the weeds. I think that God's um relation to creation and time also gets like really messy. Um do you think that God is eternally creating or do you think that he begins to create at some point? We would yeah I think we would say that he uh chose to create at a certain I guess I guess you could say at a certain point of time but at least his decision to create or the action to create had a beginning.
>> Okay. So do you think that there's like some state of affairs wherein God exists alone and then there's >> like a causally posterior you don't need to say it's like temporally prior but he's like causally prior and then there's like some like other state where it's like God with creation. There's like some state where it's God without creation and there's some state with God with creation when he creates.
>> Yeah, I think so.
>> Okay. Um do you think God is timeless?
>> Yeah. Eternal. I think that this leads to a contradiction. So if God's timeless, that means that he's unchanging. But in the state where God exists alone, there's nothing intrinsic to him that's necessitating creation, right? He's not like exercising his causal power at this alone state. And then at the state where he's with creation, well, it just seems like he changes to exercising his causal power.
So yeah, we would say he can choose to use his energies um you know in in series contiguously or eternally. Uh so I I mean I don't really see it as a contradiction to say that he can choose to do because we don't say it's like necessary that he does these things like to be a um let's see. So there's like I think I've heard the interesting argument like if an attribute of God is being a creator and that's an eternal attribute um but he's not always creating then that means that he doesn't always have that attribute. Um but yeah I think um yeah that so the changing but it wouldn't be his essence changing. It would be simply a exercise of an eternal potential.
>> But I mean that seems like a change right? Like he's actualizing a potential >> but it wouldn't be a change to his essence in our view.
>> Sure that's fine. I'm not saying that his like essence changes. I'm saying that there's a change intrinsic to him like a non relational change or rather like a non-extrinsic change >> um like internal to God. He's not exercising his causal power. He's not like acting on his intention and then he executes his intention. He starts to act on it. He can't both be not exercising his causal power and exercising his causal power. So he needs to have these two distinct states which would require a change.
>> I don't think it's bad to say he might change what he's doing from moment to moment. Uh because it's not a change in nature. I mean like I think the only necessary thing we say is it's his nature that's unchanging.
>> Yeah. Obviously like if you want to say that he's eternal then his his nature can't change otherwise he'd go out of existence. But um yeah, in terms of in terms of that, if God is timeless at all, then he just can't have these like different states of his his life. There can't be like this moment in his life where he's not exercising causal power and then some subsequent moment where he is exercising his causal power. Um otherwise, you you have like these before and after moments which just is time.
Um I I guess I'm finding it hard to see what what makes that impossible to to go from what for for any so it's an eternal God and then exercising at different moments or beginning something that had not been before uh with the actions or potential within him. Let's say I don't really necessarily see how that's a contradiction to eternality.
>> No, he totally can. You just can't be timeless and do that because those things would require like different moments to do. If you exist across like different moments where one of them comes before and then the other one comes after, well, you just exist in a timeline.
So, I mean, yeah, we kind of have to use the term beginning or he began an action, but I mean, ultimately, it's it's even the the creation of time or however this reality exists. Uh, and then he can choose to operate within it.
Uh, but still within it and outside of it.
>> So, I'm confused. Is he timeless or is he in time?
Uh why is it impossible that a timeless god could act within time?
>> The question is whether or not a timeless god can change. So I think that maybe there's like some coherent model to be salvaged where you say that the like the be theory of time is true and that creation is like co-eternal with God and that God is just like eternally willing. Um these things happen at like specific moments. uh which I don't know that that has its own problems but what for sure can't happen is that we have some state of affairs where it's God existing alone and then God changes to exercising his creative power. He goes from not creating to creating um and then also God is outside of time which would make him unchanging.
>> Yeah. Going from from not creating to creating wouldn't necessarily be within time. I mean even create creation would be the creation of time itself or the system of time or whatever it would be.
Um so yeah maybe I'm not understand >> let me yeah let me let me solize this. I think that a syllogism would probably be helpful. Um so okay if God goes from not creating to creating then God changes.
Uh everything that changes is in time.
Therefore, if God goes from not creating to creating, then God is in time.
>> Can you be more specific about like God change like what is changing in God by the act of creation?
>> What's changing in him is his like exercise of causal power. That he's not exercising causal power and that he is exercising it. When I say that he's changing, I'm not saying that his like essence is changing.
>> You know, there like I go through changes all the time. We all go through changes all the time. Um but nevertheless, like we exist through those changes.
>> Mhm.
>> So he's having like a qualitative change where he uh he doesn't have the quality of creating and then he does have the quality of creating >> and then everything that changes in time. I think I suppose I could see that argument if you have a you can't have two qualities um coexisting so you have time to allow for one state to another.
>> Mhm.
>> Um >> yeah that's that's interesting. I haven't thought about >> that's that's why the the current like state of the current state of like the eternity debate. Sorry to jump in, but the current state of the eternity debate is that either you have like the the temporal god, in which case you're just going to hold that god changes and that somehow he doesn't depend on time and time still somehow depends on him.
Although I think that stuff is like messy and contentious. Um, or you're going to hold that God has has just like eternally created because he's unchanging. So either he's always creating or never creating. So you would just say that creation's eternal.
>> Interesting. And your position are you do you think uh reality is eternal or what what's your position on like what would your position on time be or or the like what allows for the possibility of knowledge or the possibility of creation or existence like do you even take a position on that or >> those are like very different questions.
Um do you uh so in terms of my position on time um I I tend to think that time is eternal. Although um well it's there's not going to be a state of affairs without time. I think for for like the sake of ease I just told that there's like an infinite regress.
>> Really? That's interesting.
>> Yeah. Is there like some like someone you're basing that off on? I don't know of any philosopher, you know, sort of like bigname philosophers that would hold to that.
>> Yeah. Well, there's like a lot of uh tons of philosophers will defend that there are no problems with these sorts of infinite regresses. Like for example, um all the people that have responded to William Lane Craig and his um arguments against infinite regresses are great examples. You know, people like Alex Malpass think that there's no problems with infinite regress. Oh, damn. I'm getting the capture. One sec. Um, Alex Malpass says that there's no problem with infinite regress. Uh, Wes Morrison thinks that there's no problem with infinite regress. I think Joe Schmidt thinks that there's no problem with infinite regress too.
So re so existent or like creation would be yeah that's that would be I feel like that's almost a a difficult thing to believe in infinite regress or that matter is eternal that seems like a sort of a very unintuitive position to hold too. I don't know. I'm not sure. I I don't know what what's like unintuitive about it. Um I know that there's like some like weirdness, but I don't think it's any weirder than thinking that God always existed.
I think it's it's easier to buy to that just because you have an agent with uh will rather than this sort of like sort of an unthinking eternal creation that just happens to be a that produces consciousness. I yeah I don't I I wouldn't even really know how to approach that.
>> Yeah. I mean I think that when you um if if all you take is like data points like that I I do think that it's easy to come away with like the conclusion that well unthinking universe seems um like not the right thing to account for consciousness. But when you actually take like more data points into account like for example laws of nature that arise from like the geometry of spacetime um that it actually because things tend towards entropy just via like statistical laws.
You know a great producer of entropy is life. Life produces tons of entropy and one thing that is uh really good for survival and reproduction is consciousness. It's like an awareness of your environment around you. It makes it way easier to I don't know reproduce.
Makes it way easier to survive if you're aware of the things around you.
So if you have entropy in a eternal regression system, what's then you're looking at like a a if you're going back infinitely sort of a I don't know an infinitely um energized universe or >> I don't really know.
>> So well I think that's a great point. Um I don't know you that's uh that's that's really cool that you uh you found that that objection. Um I think that that's why I tend towards the views where entropy resets and it goes through cycles. So the view that I think is the most plausible is the big bounce big crunch model where the universe rapidly expands due to um dark energy or like lots of energy deposits into dark energy fields leads to the rapid expansion of the universe. But we know right now that dark energy is getting weaker over time.
So while the universe is still expanding, if dark energy continues to weaken at the rate that it is, um eventually gravity is going to overtake dark energy and everything is going to collapse back down into this hot dense state which would lead to like a resetting of entropy.
>> Interesting. And then I mean but where are you getting the the new energy from in the cycle?
>> The energy doesn't go anywhere.
it's always transferred.
>> I thought there was the idea that there there is energy uh sort of like uh le like like leaving I thought I had read something about this like u yeah no >> there's some sort of like like an actual decay >> um of energy. Yeah, maybe I'm misremembering.
>> Sure. Oh. Oh, I thought you were raising like a different objection. Um I think I'm like vaguely familiar with what you're talking about. Although um I would assume that the energy is just transferred elsewhere in the system.
Like I know on small scale systems like obviously you lose tons of energy through things like heat, but then that heat just goes elsewhere. Um >> so I don't know. I probably need to ask like one of my physics friends, but uh what I would assume is that the energy is just transferred elsewhere.
>> Yeah. Yeah, I mean that makes it's a more uh logical conclusion or simpler way to think about it, but yeah. Um >> yeah, no, that's interesting. Good things to think about. I don't really have anything else. Oh, I guess maybe I would be curious like your >> um basis for the possibility of knowledge from your system.
>> Um are you asking for like a metaphysical account of like what makes knowledge possible?
>> Yeah. Uh we have minds. These minds have like the ability to represent things.
And you know our representations, we're capable, our minds also have the ability to affirm certain representations as being um you know the way reality is or not the way reality is. And you know these affirmations can be in line the affirmations of like the representations can be in line with the way reality is or not in line with the way reality is.
And there's like some sort of like justification criteria there. Um so I don't know. I think that you just need like a mind that has roughly those properties and then you can have things with knowledge.
>> What's your take on Hume's idea that you you can't really justify empiricism?
Like you could never really prove cause and effect.
>> So I think that we just do have uh causes and effects present in our experience. Like for example, you know, if I if I were to put my hand up and then press into it, I can I can feel like the I can feel like the force directly in the experience.
I also don't think I think that there are other ways to arrive at knowledge like I'm not like a strict empiricist.
>> Okay. Interesting. Because because otherwise it is just data and you can accumulate data and notice patterns but you will never really be able to establish, you know, a law and actually prove it. I mean that was his position.
>> Yeah. Um I I definitely don't think that knowledge requires like absolute certainty.
>> Okay.
>> Otherwise, I think that you arrive at the conclusion that actually like you just can't you probably can't know anything about anything if that's what knowledge requires, >> right? And yeah, I mean is it um yeah, what was what was was the argument I was hearing where it's like sort of the if you have to take like a like a tabularasa view of how we're experiencing the world um you're you're just observing things but to actually come to knowledge seems impossible without um sort of like yeah like a like a metaphysical reality.
>> Oh, I believe in metaphysical reality.
Um like obviously there are like metaphysical things but you know if you look to the the if you look to like the philosophers that currently exist the vast majority of philosophers are atheist. The vast majority of like metaphysicians are atheist. I think it's you know the the view that atheists reject metaphysics is um I don't know maybe that's true of like lay people but it's for sure not true of like the leading atheist metaphysicians.
>> Okay. But but you wouldn't like assert that that you can know something universal that like this is true universally everywhere.
>> Oh, it depends on the thing.
>> But there would be some things.
>> Yeah. Like I don't know. For example, um maybe you'd want to say that anything that can be said about the world, there's not going to be anything that can be said about the world that's like contradictory and true, >> right? But you couldn't necessarily know that.
>> No, I think you can. I think that that's like one of the things that's like provable.
So if you just broke down like the like you can um like the truth table for all of the things that are involved in like the law of non-contradiction like this is just provable. So um all these logical operators have these things called truth tables where I don't know are I don't know if you're familiar with this stuff. I used to draw this diagram all the time. So yeah I can go ahead and give like the proof. So we have P and not P.
is false. Um, so let's do P, Q, P, and Q. Uh, oops, sorry. Let me P not P.
So when P is true, not P is going to be false. When P is false, not P is going to be true.
Um, when P is true, Q is true. This is true. when uh P is false, Q is true, this is false. When uh P is true, Q is false, this is false. And when both are false, it's false. So, okay, to to establish like whether or not to like figure out whether or not this is true, um whether or not like the law of non-contradiction holds, what what you're going to do, you see like true and false, false and true. You come down here to false, true, true, false. Both of them are false. So in every instance where you have P and not P, it evaluates to false.
>> Okay. Yeah. So I think you're saying so you're saying like certain laws of logic would be universal. You could assert universal.
>> It's basically true by definition even.
>> Mhm.
>> Like it's kind of just what the terms mean.
>> Right. Right. That's fair.
>> Yep. Do you want anything else?
>> Um no. Good discussion.
>> Hey. Yeah. Thanks. Appreciate you.
>> Appreciate it. Yep.
>> All right. Bye-bye. Make sure you double tap it on that screen. You got to love a humble king. I was expecting something different from his name. Um, which makes it like kind of kind of disappointing. You should consider changing your name guest, but other than that, uh, make sure you're double tapping on that screen, sharing with your friends, doing all that good stuff. Uh, if you're in that guest request box, you got to be 18 or older.
You got to believe in the God of the Bible, the Torah, or the Quran. You can be a DS, too. That's fine. Um, I also asked that you have some reason to think that God exists.
Fiona, this got sent in last stream, but I really appreciate the super chat. I never cared much about philosophy until I heard you on the line. I just picked up Knowledge, Reality, and Value as an audio book and plan on giving it a few listens with my driving job. That's fantastic. Yeah. Um I I've listened to the audio book um a couple of times and um I don't know. I think that my advice for that is that you should definitely listen to it in chunks. When you feel your attention waning, you should turn it off to get the most out of it. Of course, um you know, you obviously get the most out of it paying attention, but you know, when you find that your attention is like lapsed for too long and that you're not sure what he's talking about, you should probably like restart the chapter or something. Um but that's fantastic. I appreciate you serial dude. Thanks so much for the super chat. Does your idea of objective ethics prescribe any type of punishment for ethical violations or cover uh who has the right to administer punishment?
Um I mean okay so in terms of like the goworth stuff, no I think that I I don't know what the what sort of like positions people take in terms of like like foundations of um like dessert. I think that this is something that I'd be interested in reading up on. Although I do think that the girth stuff does have the ability to say that to the extent that somebody's acting in ways that are not universalizable, you can take actions if it's going to prevent you from um I don't know like exercising your rights. But then the extent of like what's reasonable, what's valid, I don't know. I think a virtue ethics framework with that is going to prescribe that there are certain things that you ought value. Um, and then with this, I think you can probably work your way towards, okay, here's what these people deserve.
And I I I'm totally unread on the ways people try to justify the state administering the punishment. I have no idea how people would even try to justify that. Um, although I'm sure that there are like deep sophisticated arguments about it, so I don't know.
Sarza Pio, thanks so much for the super chat. Ian, I must clarify that the super yesterday about 66 66 was in reference to the bit you used to do back in the day for donation. Hail Satan. Yeah.
Yeah. Yeah. I know. I remember that.
That makes sense. Um the the reason why I stopped doing it is because I thought that it was like undermining certain like rhetorical goals that um I don't know. I mean, you can I think that you come off I think it comes off like kind of like rage batty in a way that isn't exactly my goal.
Dr. Fudge, thanks so much for the super chat. Uh, go watch penguins eat fish.
Uh, major. It's probably more fulfilling than arguing for this point. That's they eat fish in like freaky ways. It's kind of weird.
Dusk frame. Thanks so much for the chat.
I heard you have a math degree. Prove it. What's 9 + 10? 21.
All right.
Hello there.
>> Hey, how's it going?
>> Hey.
>> Yeah, I'm all good. U thank you for um you know, accepting the request from yesterday. I did hear your words >> and um I know that your um your bio says you're opy pill, but I just hope that we can come both from a place of logic, right, before anything.
You would say you're loyal to logic before you're loyal to the fact that God doesn't exist, right?
>> Yeah. Obviously, I mean, if I was presented with some logical argument for thinking that God does exist, then I would arrive at the conclusion that God does exist. you know, I I'd like to think that I would change my mind, but uh just for the for for the sake of the discussion, how how old are you and what's your religion?
>> Uh I'm 18 and um purely a theist here.
>> So my I I think I think I'll just lay down my argument, right, if that's all right.
And then I'll say like >> basically my Okay. So I know you'll have your objections but um so you exist, you experience change.
Therefore, for this changing system uh to be right, it cannot be both completely isolated and eternal because if it if it was if it was isolated, if it was completely isolated, then there's nothing to act on it, right? So, it can't change. But the other change it can obviously have is coming into existence which is which is which falls um prey to the calam cosmological argument as you probably are aware of of course and um with that being the case even if there is a different even if we assume that the universe isn't completely isolated then we're saying maybe like another like another universe right so we have like this idea of a multiverse where one multiverse hit into this sorry one universe hit into this universe and cause it to change from the state it was in before the big bang right cuz this is where I get really tripped up so there's the idea that we came from a like basically insanely dense infinitely dense um state the universe and then there was the big bang yet the big bang has no course and for me that requires something outside of space and time for that process to even occur.
So that that's what's really always tripped me up about you know God existing or anything. I mean obviously I've looked at other things from then as well but yeah that's basically my argument.
>> Yeah. So I think that we could probably take this from like two approaches because the argument that you're giving is very similar to the argument made by an ancient philosopher named Parmenities. So, Parmenities's argument is basically that uh change um is an illusion because uh all like existence is all that there is and anything that comes into existence would need to be non-existence which can't be so in fact like things can't change. Um is is I don't know one of his arguments. But um >> I mean I wouldn't really tether my point completely to his. I mean I feel like it might introduce something additional to what I've said. So >> yeah. Um >> yeah.
>> So the the way that some the way that Aristotle responds to permenities is by distinguishing between two things act and potency. Um the the way that new things come into being is by being actualized um when previously they were like a potential. they existed potentially um in things that were actual and then the things that were actual were able to bring them into existence.
So in order to avoid the argument that the the universe um you know if I exist and change exists then the universe can't be like isolated or eternal. But indeed it could be isolated and eternal because there could be things that are actual um that are acting on the potentials of other things and then giving rise to new things that used to be potential. So you could just have the system interacting with itself going back infinitely.
>> Okay. So so isn't that just like dualism?
>> Isn't that just isn't that isn't that like you know this dimension that you're adding clearly something that has to be actualized then or what whatsoever you say. No, specifically what you would be holding is that properties have dispositions. Um that maybe even like underlying everything is dispositions that things can be exposed to certain stimuli and then when exposed to certain stimuli they behave in a specific way.
For example, water has the disposition to get boiled that I don't know what the boiling temperature is. Um and you know that's like a like a property of water.
it's intrinsic to it that when exposed to specific conditions, it will behave in specific ways. So in that way the new things that come into existence or like the sort of behaviors that take place exist within the potential of the things that exist.
>> Oh, it's 100 Celsius. [ __ ] I'm I'm Fahrenheit.
>> I I would ask then like you're saying that there's obviously an initial state that you're saying always exists, right?
No, I don't think there'd be an initial state.
>> Okay. So, I'm not really understanding how you're saying there's this actual state in the first place that then wouldn't this wouldn't this couldn't this just be understood as God if it consciously like decides for us to then turn into actual whatever you're saying.
>> I didn't say that. Um, what I'm saying is that there could just be like an infinite regress of things, I don't know, like satisfying the dispositions for other things and then giving rise to further things.
>> I wouldn't say an infinite regress is possible.
>> How many things does God know?
>> I' I'd assume all infinite things, all infinite possibilities.
>> Yeah. So, why isn't an infinite regress possible if you believe in like an actual infinite I don't I don't Why would it have to be actual?
I don't know what you're what you're like positing here with this actual.
>> Okay. What's your problem with the infinite regress? Like why can't there be an infinite regress?
>> Oh, because because I I mean I guess because of my theory of time, right? I mean this is this is something I heard you saying the other day that you object to but I still believe like simply saying that you believe in the B theory of time still you have to explain our consciousness which would then mean there's like a dualistic approach that has to be had there.
Um, I think that even under A theory, the justifications aren't good. But I think like under B theory, the it's like it's like super death day for the the infinite regress arguments if the B theory is true.
But even on the A theory, I don't think that there's >> Yeah. But but like Okay. So So how would you like define I mean this is a hard question, right? But I I'd say that I'm experiencing this this moment, right? I wouldn't say I'm experiencing every single moment simultaneously. I'd say >> I'm a limited consciousness, right? I'm a limited consciousness. I'm not 4D. I'm 3D.
>> So if you want to say like being actual or whatever is the 4D reality and then my 3D is like this other reality. I can't remember the name you've given it.
>> Like worm theory.
>> What was the name? Sorry.
>> Sorry.
>> Like eternalism. Are you talking about like the the view like the view of time eternalism? The the the fourdimensional block exists. Are you speaking of like the view that what it means to be an individual in the four-dimensional universe is that you exist as a four-dimensional object which is called worm theory?
I I'm kind of I'm kind of just talking about I'd say I'd say it's the um idea of eternalism. I I mean I wouldn't be 100% sure what you mean by worm theory if you want to explain.
>> So under the B theory of time what objects are are not three-dimensional objects but they're like four-dimensional objects. Like there's the three-dimensional space that you take up and then there's the temporal dimension too. So that's, you know, four dimensions in total of a fourdimensional object. And the way that that's called like if you if you picture it, I don't know, you can picture it in three dimensions still, but like suppose that um suppose that you had like a two-dimensional thing that also had like a time dimension um and then you just sketched out its entire life, it would form like this like contiguous like wormlike object.
So, okay, we we exist like that under eternalism, but we only experience like single time slices. Eternalism, like the B theory of time does not state that you're experiencing all times simultaneously. You're experiencing the time that you're at um and that you are actualizing various times.
>> So, there's still a direction of time basically.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. So, so you wouldn't believe, so you basically don't believe that infinite regress regress is impossible.
>> I don't know what I've never been given a compelling reason to think that infinite regress can't happen.
I mean logically for me I wouldn't I wouldn't concede if someone said infinite regress is possible cuz I don't have any like logical basis to agree with them on every logical basis for me says the opposite like everything has cause and effect and it's very clear that we don't have infinite regresses happen.
>> How would we know?
because of our logical facets. I mean everything everything has cause and effect from what I from I mean if I was to discard my logic perhaps I could agree with you.
>> But what would be illogical about thinking that before every event there's like some cause and that there's just like an infinite chain of causes and effects.
>> Well, we wouldn't get to now.
>> Why not? If you're saying if you're saying there's been infinite time before now, now cannot happen.
>> But you're saying every single bit does happen as a worm or something in this idea that every single thing exists independently, not like sequentially.
>> No, it is sequential >> in the same way like >> it's all but it's all but it's all real.
>> Yeah, >> it's all real. Yeah, you can draw like a spatial analogy, you know, you can like sequence space um in like from like a specific position.
>> So that's why I'm that's yeah, that's where I say it's kind of like dualistic, right? If you're saying it's all eternal and yet it it has an element to it where it's sequential, then there's there's two like contradicting things if they make up one reality.
>> Nope, that's not a contradiction. You can like for example the numbers are infinite but they're sequential.
>> Numbers are not infinite.
>> How many numbers are there?
>> Well, I I couldn't give you an infinite amount of numbers.
>> It's not an amount. There's just like never ending like the set of numbers the what you can describe the cardality.
So there's something that's like size but for sets it's called cardality. Um and those can be infinite. So you would say like the set of numbers is infinite like the cardality of that is infinite like there are infinite numbers.
>> Okay. So if you want so why why would I believe in this rather than believe there's a god? Like is this 50/50 to you or is this just like >> No, >> because this goes against logic.
Basically, you're saying >> what about it?
>> Your infinite regress goes against logic. So, it's blind faith.
>> Infinite regress being possible. That's just blind faith.
>> I'm asking why is that illogical?
Because there isn't any there isn't any think we have tethered to the idea of an infinite regress being possible. This is outside of spatio tempmporal logic. This is just you're saying it's just beyond my thoughts basically at this point.
>> Are you asking I mean if you'd like I can give you all the evidence that eternalism is true and then you know from there there just becomes no problems right. I I mean to be clear, I asked you you said multiple times, it's illogical. The only way I could accept this is if I discarded logic. But then when I ask you what's illogical about it, all you can say is, well, that's not my experience.
>> Well, well, yeah. I' I'd say that is pretty much how humans come about.
>> I haven't I haven't experienced God.
>> Can I discard God?
I haven't experienced God. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I haven't experienced God. What do you mean you haven't experienced?
>> Yeah. Just because there isn't like a thing in your experience doesn't mean that that thing can't be actual.
Like I don't think I can rule out the existence of a god on the basis that all the minds that I've ever encountered have been embodied.
So you don't believe you you'd say you cannot deductively say that God doesn't exist?
>> No, I think you probably can.
>> What would you just say that?
>> I don't think that you could do it on the basis of saying that because all minds uh I've ever encountered are embodied because every mind that I've ever encountered has a brain attached to it. That there couldn't be a god who is like a like a brainless mind.
Okay. Your brainless mind. I'm not I'm not necessarily sure what you're what you're saying with these phrases.
>> Like God doesn't have a brain, but he is a mind.
>> I am not sure.
God doesn't have a brain. So you're saying God is a matter basically, but he does think.
>> God has a mind. That's like one of his.
>> So you're saying you haven't experienced anyone who's like that? I haven't experienced I haven't interacted with anything that would be like a mind disconnected from a brain. All the minds that I've interacted with have had brains.
>> Okay. Sure. Yeah. Okay. That that makes sense. But the the idea of God beyond like spatial like space and time, right?
But your your idea is basically encapsulating space and time and that's and and then it's and then it's still not you know falling to the logic of space and time basically you're saying you're saying it's eternal some space and time is technically eternal in some way. Um but that and but it's like space time space and time are not completely separate even. So you're saying space is a you have to say space is eternal and space is eternal and isolated as is time.
>> What do you mean isolated?
>> And and if space is isolated and eternal, it can't change.
>> Okay. But it Okay, first of all, >> but you're saying infinite regress is possible. So I don't know what the conversation can be.
>> Sorry, say that again.
>> There might be a delay. I'm sorry. I'm realizing that there might just be a delay. Can you hear me? Actually, let me know when you hear this.
>> I think I'm lagging a bit on your end.
>> Yeah. Um Okay, that's that's fine. So, I just don't think that you provided like a substantive critique of Infinite Regress.
>> What?
>> Holy [ __ ] >> Uh this the delay is pretty dire.
Okay, I that might be ripped then I guess. Yeah, this conversation.
>> If you want to come back a different day, you're more than welcome to. Um I don't know. I enjoyed the conversation while it lasted.
Plus, you've waited so long to get in.
Nicholas, thanks so much for the super chat. Any recommendations for intro to philosophy books? Like the person whose super chat I read a bit ago was talking about Michael Humer's knowledge, reality, and value was fantastic. Um, it's a really great intro. He's wrong about a lot of things, but all of his conclusions are very intuitive. So, um, kind of like by their very nature.
So, he's he justifies positions that you agree with. And then when you get to the veganism chapter, he's going to demonstrate to you how you can, you know, through rational reflection, you're able to um, you know, change your intuitions and bring them in line with what logically follows.
Dr. Fudge, thanks so much for the super chat. Ian, could you look up uh strata cut clay animation and tell us if that's a good rough illustration of the worm theory you're talking about? Yeah.
What the hell?
Uh.
Oh, maybe maybe it is. Right. It's like that except it's like even longer, right? Yeah. Yeah. I think that this actually could be um let me uh let me find like a good one.
So So yeah. Yeah. In the sense that this is like in the sense that there's it, you know, it's like the to the side, right? But like imagine if it was like the same thing but like stretched out and extended and then is at like different points of space over it. Yeah. Like that.
Yeah. Yeah. That's like basically the view of like what objects are under eternalism is that you think the entire timeline you think there's like like the big block timeline that exists and then you think that there are like these worm objects that exist inside of it.
All right, let's go to the next guest.
Hey, how's it going?
>> Hey, how are you?
>> Doing well. How old are you?
>> Doing well. Doing well.
>> Yep. Uh, what? Oh, sorry. How old are you?
>> I am 47.
>> Yeah. What religion?
Um, I believe in the Messiah. Um, so I guess in the Torah in the sense um I believe that um Yeshua or or or um the Messiah, he he taught that um we would love God with our whole mind, body, soul, and spirit and love our neighbor as ourselves.
and um you know so I've listened to you for a while and I think that you you definitely do believe in in there being a but you you're a a higher power but you have you have trouble to to you're thinking about all the different dynamics of it and and trying to bring physics into it and understand I think the the something that we would have difficulty understanding. Um, >> so, uh, >> have you looked at how sign I'm sorry.
I'm what was you saying?
>> Yeah. I I don't It depends what you mean by higher power, I don't think that I'd think of myself in that way. I don't believe in anything that's supernatural.
So, to the extent that like typically when people talk about higher powers, those things are supernatural. I don't believe in any of those.
H. So what do you believe happens when we when we die? Do you believe that does it depend or do you you know do you do you believe that our consciousness continues in a dream state possibly or or >> I think likely we just stop existing.
You know before I was born I didn't exist and I didn't have any experience.
After I die I think it's probably going to be something like that.
Have you have you looked at um how sat like sinatics um when when uh Dr. Uh there there there was a there was a in in Japan they studied I'm sure you're familiar with how like um the crystalline structure of like the word love and how how um the word love can and the word hate can have different dynamics and impressions. Um you know >> I've never been less aware of anything in my entire life. I have no idea what you're talking about.
So, so when you grow plants for instance, uh if you were to look at a more simple version of it or or mushrooms, uh when you speak negative like hateful words or if you write >> they they they even they even have written the word and uh the it will it will have a it will cause the the mushroom to mold whereas or or the plant to to uh thrive less. Um I don't know if but but with sinatics um Dr. uh Emoto Masuri I think is the name but uh he would he would you use um they would instantly freeze uh he would he would freeze water and the word love uh would have have impressions of a beautiful crystalline structure like a snow like a snowflake whereas the word hate would blob up. Um there's been a lot of different studies like this that Okay, I'm back. Uh, let me get this shared. Let me get that shared. Let me get this shared.
Okay. And then let's continue. Sure. Um, so what specifically do I Google in order to find the thing that you're talking about?
>> Um, Dr. um MAS, um, Msoui. M A S U R I Dr. Msuri. Uh, water memory. You can put that in. Is there like a >> and um yeah, you'll see like snowflakes with or classical music leaves a different impression than than like some some some rock music like different frequencies and I guess it's the word um and and this is this is uh with the cryogenics but they've also done it with like plants and and um fungus. uses as well while they're growing.
>> Well, okay. Wait. So, so one sec. I'm I'm looking into Let's do one claim at a time because we've just jumped from like hateful words towards plants to like crystalline structure of love and now we're jumping to like a third thing.
Let's stick with the plants. I'm trying to find the studies and I can't find any of them. And when I look into this claim, um, it kind of sounds like none of this is like actual experiments that have genuinely taken place. It's like, >> no, no, Dr. Dr. Put in uh put put in Dr. Emoto E M O T O Missouri Msoui and and in and um uh water memory and and he's he's uh he's well renowned and and these studies these studies are are something that will make you really really uh understand things differently. You should look into it. Um but but um yeah, so so I I I I I I appreciate you, man. Um I I just I I understand you've learned a lot and and um I'm not as familiar with a lot of things like like that that you're familiar with, but um just the real basic idea that the Messiah tried to teach us of um to um you know have patience and and um and and the truth you know you know actually you know like so so having respect for women. Uh, all the things that you would think God really wanted.
>> They said that they say like women should pipe the [ __ ] down.
>> No, not not the Messiah. The Messiah taught love and truth. It was love and truth. So like, you know, the the the to to really to be fair to to to all of these things. It's it's like that's and and all that is is truth, you know, like what really should happen in this situation. every situation that we deal with, it's like there's there's and things can go different ways, but what I'm talking about is uh when there's definitely a right and wrong. You know, people try to act like there's not, but you know, there's um >> holy [ __ ] this is what a scathing Wikipedia article. Before we move on, um let's talk about the the hidden messages in water by Msura Amodo. Uh this is an incredible Wikipedia page. so incredible that I I would be doing a disservice to all the people in chat um if I didn't show you this. Um look at that. I've never seen a Wikipedia page that jumps from like body and then the only section is criticism.
That's incredible. Let's read this. uh the hidden messages in water in 2004 uh book was written by Msuro Emoto advancing the pseudoscientific idea that the molecular structure of water is changed by the presence of human consciousness nearby backed by exhaustive and wildly uns scientific research claiming uh to back this conjecture. William Ravi, a professor of biochemistry at University College Cork, writing in the Irish Times, described the hidden messages in water as a work of pseudocience and characterize the book as an amalgam of pseudocience or of science and mumbo jumbo with no credible hypothesis as to causation, no development of the idea, no fruitfulness in the concept, and above all, no clear scientific demonstration. He concluded by stating that it is very unlikely that there is any reality beyond behind Emodo's claim. A triple bind study of these claims failed to show any effect or triple blind study of these claims failed to show any effect. Also, the phenomena he describes has never been published in a peer-reviewed science journal, which almost certainly means that the effect cannot be demonstrated under controlled conditions. Uh, physicist Kenneth Libre, an expert on snow, also saw the book as displaying confirmation bias, joking that it's good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out. Uh Har Har Har Har Har Har Har Har Har Har Har Har Har Har Har Har Har Har Har Har Har Har Har Har Har Har Har Har Har Har Har Har Har Har Har Har Har Har Har Har Harriet Hall wrote for the Skeptical Inquirer that the book holds a place of honor on my bookshelf as the worst book I have ever read. It is about as scientific as Alice in Wonderland's uh Emodo took pictures of snowflakes and observed in scare quotes that clean water made prettier crystals. Upon the book becoming a New York Times bestseller literary critic, Dwight Garner wrote in the New York Times book review that it was one of those headscratchers that made him question the sanity of the reading public.
>> Genuinely scathing.
>> Yeah.
So maybe maybe so you're saying that that uh that that that that he that that wasn't even that that that those studies weren't weren't any good. Is that is that what you think?
>> I'm saying from what it sounds like it sounds like there weren't even studies.
>> It sounds like all of the all the studies that happened happened, you know, elsewhere. um you know they they failed to find any sort of evidence of this that apparently there was like a triple blind study which is like how you would be doing this if you're interested in studying it and it found no effect of this whatsoever.
>> Interesting.
>> Well, I apologize to everybody if that if that in fact is not true. I don't know. I guess I don't know. I I um I I wanted to just tell you that though that uh that uh love and truth, man, that's that's what I believe, you know, um in >> I think those things are real.
>> Yeah, definitely.
>> I just don't >> I just don't know why I would think that God is real is kind of the thing I'm trying to get clear on.
Well, well, um, I think that it's hard to look around and and it's it's hard to imagine that uh life wasn't from creation, you know. Um, I can't prove to you uh myself with with words anything, you know. Um, >> well, >> but yeah, man. It was nice talking to you. I appreciate you.
>> Hey, thanks for coming on. Appreciate you.
>> Cool, man. Yeah.
>> That's fine. That's probably enough time.
Relax with Russell ASMR. Thank you so so much for the super chat. Uh, God is the master of life and death. In Matthew, he resurrected a bunch of saints when Jesus died. I want to say he could do the same for victims of mass shootings. And this allows him to help using miracles without impeding free will.
That's true. I mean, I don't know.
There's just like a ton of contradictions. Like, he kills people all the time, so it seems like God could kill without taking away free will. Um, you know, he does indeed uh resurrect people so he could do that without impeding on free will. It just seems like they could do a bunch of [ __ ] without impeding on free will. Um, I also I I don't know. I'm becoming like increasingly skeptical that I think that either God knows what you do because you do it or you do it because God knows it.
Um, and if God knows it because you do it, then God's knowledge is dependent.
And probably the theist doesn't want to say that God is dependent.
But that leaves them with saying that you do the action because God knows you do it, which means that there's no free will. So it seems like either God is a dependent being or there's no free will.
But let's get a big W for Russell. I appreciate that. And Dalton, thank you so much for the raid. I appreciate you.
Dr. Fudge, thanks so much for the super chat. I think the view would be that if uh we were 2D experiencing time on the third, it would look like that. So just, you know, add another dimension to that.
Yeah, that's exactly what it is. Yeah, add another spatial dimension.
All right, let's get the very next guest. If you're in that guest request ah guest request box, you got to be 18 or older. You got to believe in the God of the Bible, Torah, or Quran. You can also be a DS. That's fine, too. Hey, how's it going?
>> Hey, what's going on, Ian? Yeah. How old are you?
>> 46.
>> Yep. And what religion?
>> I'm a Christian. Follow Jesus.
>> Yeah. What makes you think that God exists?
>> Um, well, so many things. Um, I mean, just simply put from a logical standpoint.
Um, something from nothing. I just have a you know like like the one of the last guys said I almost feel like I have to abandon uh logic to >> draw that conclusion.
>> That's very interesting but it's not what I believe you know. I agree. I don't think that something can come from nothing.
>> Okay. Yeah. I heard you mention infinite regress. So yeah >> that's kind of what you believe. So I got a question for you. So can you kind of explain like what the difference is between that and like a concept of God in a sense?
>> Sure. Yeah. Infinite regress is going to hold that for every moment. It's just a subsequent moment that gives rise to the next one. Whereas God is going to be you know like some transcendent ultimate mind that from which everything depends on him. Um so these things are just like very different. You know the infinite regress takes place within the universe. You know God is is not within the universe.
>> You know God is independent. The infinite regress is going to be like an infinite series of like moments that depend on the moments that came before them.
>> Okay. Okay. So then everything is dependent on something else. So there is no independence in that.
>> No, there could be dependent or there could be an independent thing just not causally. There isn't something that's like causally ultimate. But maybe you want to say that all of this stuff is going to be like grounded in the wave function of the universe or grounded in like the space-time fields or something like that.
>> Okay. So I mean yeah that that's that again that I even with with that concept that's hard for me to to grasp. I feel like you have to do probably more work to to to grasp that than to believe in a creator. Um >> you're saying because it's complicated you'd prefer to believe false things.
No, no. I'm just saying like the logical So there's nothing that's independent of time, space, and matter um in the model.
Is that a fair >> No, not quite. Um in the model you would say that there's there's uh nothing that is independent of like the sum total quantum system. Maybe maybe you'd want to say that it um the ultimate thing is like the quantum system the the entirety of it which spans across the entire timeline.
>> So in that so the what what the only thing in that that's infinite is the actual what regress itself or what's what's infinite in that?
>> Yeah. So what would be infinite there is like the chain of causation like the the temporal dimension going back into the past is infinite >> and so >> and into the future as well. And so for you that's that's not a godlike attribute.
>> Not even a little bit >> because and so what you said is because God is dependent or excuse me God is outside of time >> because God's not in the universe.
You know I don't think God is like an infinite temporal regress.
>> Okay. So God is not in the universe. So, you're saying God is outside of space?
>> If he existed, presumably he wouldn't be in the universe.
>> Why? Yeah.
>> If you're saying that he's the creator of it, >> so he he's the creator, but what he you're saying he can't enter into it.
>> In order to do that, he would need to change, which means that he would need to be inside of time. So then at that point, it doesn't seem like he can be the creator of time.
So you know in Christian belief um the answer to that would be Jesus Christ who took on flesh.
>> Yeah.
>> So he was the word. He was the word was with God. The word was God and dwelt with God and all things that were made were made through him. Right? Nothing that was made was made without him.
>> And so basically there's an outside of time situation there. But then it goes on to say in that that he entered into time.
>> Oh, >> that's the Christian perspective. So >> taking on flesh.
>> Sure. So he was like this unchanging being and then he changes and it goes into time.
So he's this unchanging changing being basically >> unchanging changing being. I mean, so so you're saying that because he entered into time, he changed because he took on flesh.
>> Yeah, indeed. That is a change. Yeah, absolutely.
>> What what changed about his So yeah, I mean there's So what changed about his nature?
>> I did I make the claim that his nature changed? I don't think that that's the claim I made. I think that the claim that I made is that the the individual changed that the entity Jesus or the son changed from being a temporal to being temporal from not having flesh to having flesh.
>> Yeah, I I kind of think I'm following but I Yeah, so I'm jumping to some conclusions because I'm trying to fill the gap in. So So you're saying that What? Like, so you're not saying his nature changed?
>> Yeah, >> you are saying his nature changed. I I literally said so.
>> No, no, I'm not I'm not saying that his nature changed. So, it's not even >> Yes, I'm not saying that.
>> Okay. So, then can you specifically say what what changed?
>> Yeah, he changed from being outside of time to being inside of time. He changed from not having flesh to having flesh.
you know, he changes from not knowing um that he's Jesus living at this specific time to knowing these things.
Okay. So, I guess m so maybe it's more of a perspective thing. Um, from our perspective being creatures that are bound in time, are you are you saying basically it seems like that you're saying that the way that things unfolded reveals to you that there was a change from your perspective? Because you're you're living moment to moment just like I am.
And so one moment to you that looks like and you look at somebody or Jesus or whoever if you look at something and then you see what you perceive as a change in the next moment because you're bound by time as I am then that in a certain perspective that's a change from our perspective but is it truly a change? Uh yeah it is truly a change right you know I think that our perspective can be in line with reality or out of line with reality you know maybe you think everything is subjective I disagree I think that there are certain objective facts and that if something becomes different then it changed you know if you have this thing Jesus can't be the sun can't be both out of time and in time that's a contradiction the son can't both not have flesh and have flesh that's a contrad contradiction. So if it goes from one state to the other, well then that's a change. You know, change just means that it became different.
>> I mean, I I agree with you. I I kind of agree with you like based on, you know, you're talking about contradictions and stuff, but I'm also saying that maybe there's not a contradiction there.
It's just more of a perspective thing that makes it seem like there's a contradiction. Maybe you're jumping to a conclusion that uh that there's contradictory there's contradictory things. Like for example, maybe you've heard this analogy before, but when you have a dream, are you inside of your dream or are you in your body? Like where are you actually at?
>> Like you're experiencing both. like like just if you have a dream if you have a dream you know that you swear is real um while you're having that dream where are you >> are you asking like the body or >> I'm asking just >> like the experience like your I don't know the experience is happening within your mind but then your body is uh spatially located and of course like your your mind is inseparable from your brain so ultimately where you are is just in the universe Okay. So then your dream is inside of the universe because it's >> ultimately. Yeah.
>> Ultimate. Okay. So So it's it So why would you say that? Like it it's in the universe. And I and I kind of agree with you, but I want to understand like why would you say it's in the universe? Is it because you're saying it's in your mind or what?
>> Yeah. Because your dream is taking place like you what the what you're experiencing it's all happening in your brain. Um, and then you know your your brain is located in the universe. So then the dream must also be located there.
So we we seem to have a contradiction here. You can maybe help me figure this out. So the sun goes from being outside of time to being inside of time. If the sun goes from being outside of time to being inside of time, then he changes.
But God cannot change. Which of these things is false?
Well, you know, like, so let's see. The son of God goes from outside of time being inside of time. So, I don't necessarily so I can't necessarily say agree to that first statement. Um, because in in the Bible, in the word of God, it says that Christ holds all things together and that includes time.
And so, >> yeah, let's isolate this premise.
So, I don't know uh where where did the sun exist in the year um I don't know 1,000 BC did the sun exist >> the the son of God or are you talking about the actual like the >> like the sun like the >> Yeah. Yeah. But where did he exist? When did he exist?
>> Oh, the the son of God. Um, well, he he always has been.
>> Yeah.
>> So, he always has been um meaning that he's an eternal uh person.
>> Yeah. Sure. Got it. So, does has he been there even when time didn't exist?
>> Yes.
>> Yeah. So then in the state where the sun exists but time doesn't exist. Is the sun in time?
>> Well, time doesn't exist. So no.
>> Yeah. Exactly.
>> Yeah. He can't be in time.
>> Yeah. Um and then when time does exist, at least in like the year 20 AD, is the sun in time?
>> Um the sun he enters into time. Yes.
Yeah. So then he goes from being outside of time to being in time.
>> So you're talking about his body and his humanity. Yes.
>> Just like the entity.
>> Whatever the sun refers to is the thing that goes from being not in time to being in time.
>> Okay. that that's I mean so then you're saying Christ had like Jesus the son has a a fully human nature and a fully God as well. So there there's both.
So the issue is is that that's kind of gibberish, you know, for for this exact reason. And it seems like it would ascribe to Jesus incompatible properties like being outside of time and being inside of time. You know, he would need to he would need to be all powerful and not all powerful.
>> Yeah. I mean, that's why I gave the analogy of the dream. It's not a perfect analogy, but it's kind of edging like a half a step towards that. So that's why I'm saying that when you when you say this is a contradiction um just immediately it's like hey there is you can kind of conceive of this now you can make the argument that hey it's happening in your mind and stuff like that. Um but you could you could also make the argument that from your perception from your perspective um you are somewhere else. And so when you wake up, well, you're here, right? But really, you could also say, well, really, where are you? And you could go down that kind of rabbit hole. And I'm not I'm not saying that that's like a worthwhile necessarily rabbit hole to go down, but I'm saying that when it comes to location and stuff like this and when it comes to this perspective for us as people who are in time, it gets a little bit it's it's hard for me to just jump to that conclusion and say, "Oh, this, you know, this doesn't make sense. I can see a case for it."
>> Sure. But then it becomes unclear as to which premise here you would disagree with.
So, we talked about one. It sounds like you kind of agree with one, actually.
You agree with three. It seems like you'd have to disagree that going from being outside of time to being in time is the is a change. But then that seems to commit you to saying that being outside of time is the same as being in time. Like this is the same state.
I think that God didn't like or Jesus didn't change in the fact that he's always been the son of God. He's always been the second member of the Godhead. Um but he took on flesh. And so is that changing his divine nature? No.
>> I didn't I I didn't claim that it's changing his divine nature. I don't know why you straw man me.
Well, that's what I'm that's just what I'm saying. So that's why so that's where there's a hangup with this number two. It's it's broad to me. It's too broad. Well, what's the specific change we're talking about?
>> How did >> it's like a like a qualitative change like he changes in his qualities.
>> So a human so the a human obviously he changed as a human uh like the human nature changed because it was a b he was a baby. He grew you know um and all that stuff like that. He was born and he and he died and rose again. All those things are changes, right?
>> Yep.
>> But but I I think that what's going on is that you're Well, I'm separating what I'm doing is I'm separating the human nature and the God nature because the the claim is really essentially the claim is that God changed and I'm saying no, he didn't.
>> Well, yeah. Not all changes are like changes to your nature, right? like you've changed multiple times, but you your human nature never changed.
>> You know, it seems like kind of like a deliberate like misunderstanding of me to think that when I'm saying that God is changing that I must mean that he's like changing in his nature.
>> So then my human nature never changed but I have changed, right?
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. How is that how is that not contradictory?
Because there are parts of you that are not your nature. There are we would distinguish between like your essential attributes and your non-essential attributes. So you'd say that the essential attributes that make you who you are, those things are the same. You know, your parents, the fact that you're a human, you're like conscious, uh continuity, um these things remain the same. It's other things that change.
And the other things are just what like behavioral stuff or can you >> Yeah, like your your height changes, you know, what you're thinking about changes. Um what you understand, how much you know, those things change. Um >> you know, you can get a haircut, that's a change.
>> Yep. Physical kind of physical characteristics change.
>> Yeah. Yeah. So maybe so maybe like hardware versus software like the hardware is changing the software is the same to put it simply something like that. Am I following you?
>> Uh maybe. But there's like a that's that's true of everything that I've said just because you know we're looking at um we're we're looking at specifically like physical beings. But you also want to say that there's like identity changes that have taken place that you know there was like some change whereby you didn't exist and then you did exist.
That might not have been like a physical change. Um instead what that is is like a metaphysical change. And there are physical changes associated with that but that's like a like a coming into existence sort of thing.
So then for me, because I'm in time, you can kind of break me up into parts because I'm literally living my life step by step. Yep.
>> But there is a part of me that's just not changing.
>> Yeah. Yeah. You'd want to say like your essential characteristics are not changing.
>> So can the same be true about God?
Because that's kind of essentially what I'm saying is that there is something that's not changing, right? Not if you want God to be outside of time then God can't undergo any intrinsic change >> right God cannot right but if God takes on flesh Jesus now he's in time and he has a human nature >> but that's an intrinsic change which he can't do >> intrinsic change to but see like I think that h how how do you how are you able to make that jump that that's an intrinsic change. Are you saying like you are you breaking up God God into parts? Are you saying that like how how do you how are you parsing that apart?
Because like earlier you said that there's a part of me that doesn't change and a part of me that does. See you kind of broke me into parts, right?
>> We we could call it hardware and software, but to be really, >> you know, broadstroying about it, but >> So you broke me into parts and that's that's fine because >> you're in time. Yeah.
>> Yeah. I'm in time. So when you have Jesus come into time or take on flesh as the Bible calls it, then he has a human nature that is in time.
>> Yeah. And here's the problem is that when you're outside of time, you can't change. In order to do any change at all, you would need to be in time. So, in order for Jesus to change in the first place from being outside of time to being in time, he would already need to be in time and he's not. He's out of time.
>> He's Well, okay. So, maybe that's So, when you say he's outside of time, you're kind of saying like it almost like here's this place called time and then there's this place called not time and Jesus is in that place called not time. What I'm saying when I'm saying that he's outside of time is that he doesn't exist within like these um like temporal like before and after relations.
>> He isn't at like these distinct moments.
Maybe you want to say that there's only like one moment and it's like his eternal moment.
>> Mhm. Yeah. Right. And so he so if he enters into if he goes into a moment in his eternal time meaning it's his moment right so everything is held together within him.
So there's not a separation between him and time in the sense of like how we look at space.
So it's it's together because everything is held together within him. And so if he goes into a moment in time and takes on humanity to be able to do that, then there's still he's still tethered to eternity in his god nature. If he's broken, if if he's broken, if you're saying that like he has to abandon his god, like I'm Yeah, I'm guess I'm trying I'm trying to figure out why what about him has changed that in your eyes? I mean, I'm saying that he's he's got he's he's he's put on humanity, so he's 100% a human being, but he's still 100% God. That would be 200% of something. Is his humanity identical to his divinity?
>> Is his humanity identical to his divinity?
>> Yeah.
>> No.
>> No.
>> Did you say no?
>> No.
>> Yeah. Then it sounds like he would have to be like 200% something.
>> Why?
>> Because you're saying that he's like 100% one thing and like 100% like another thing.
Yeah. I mean that so that's not but that's not that's a paradox. That's not a contradiction.
>> No, paradoxes are specifically self-referential statements. Like for example, this statement is false would be a paradox. Uh that just is a contradiction. When you have, you know, you have this, you have this like 100% human and this 100% divine being, but the the humanity is not the divine being, >> right?
It's two natures.
>> Okay. Sure. But then at that point, you're not saying that like 100% of him is human.
>> It is 100% of him is human and 100% of it him is he's it's not you're you're part. So you're splitting him apart.
That's I think that's where we're missing each other. You're splitting you're splitting him apart. Maybe that's the whole issue is that like I said, it's it seems to be a perspective thing because if if we're both bound by time, we're going to have we're going to have a hard time like infinite regress, right?
that you know like these concepts when you're in time you these concepts you're you're kind of limited to how much you can figure it out based on your place in time and in space because you're used to being in a certain location. And that again that goes back to why I'm bringing up this whole dream thing is because there's you can kind of conceive of a a situation where you're in two places at once. Now that's contradictory, right? Because we're bound by time and space.
>> I don't think that you're genuinely in some different place when you're in your dream, though. I don't think that's contradictory.
Also, I mean, I don't know if you're aware of this, but like the dream's not real. what you're experiencing isn't an accurate reflection of, you know, what's what's actual.
>> Hello.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. Sorry. Sorry. I uh I lost you for a second there. Can you repeat what you were saying?
>> Yeah. The dream's not real. It's not actual. What you are experiencing in the dream isn't a reflection of what's actually going on.
So if you believe that you're in you're like actually in your like high school >> when you're dreaming about your high school, well then you're just wrong.
You're mistaken, >> right? You know that when you wake up.
>> Mhm. Yeah. And you would be incorrect in the belief that you're in your high school if that's what you believe.
>> Yeah. Right. But then but then at a certain point this life will be over too and you're going to be in another place potentially or like you you believe that you will cease to exist, right?
>> Yeah.
>> That's something that you that's that's a belief you have, right?
>> Yep.
>> So there's a there's a certain there's a certain conscious level consciousness level that you have in a dream. And for all intents and purposes, usually we we think that that's real.
That's really happening. And then we wake up and then we say, "Oh, no, that wasn't real."
>> Um like all the things that you said.
But what what's going on is that so why aren't we knowing that that's not real when we're actually in that that state, >> right? Why?
>> Because you're not thinking about it too hard.
>> Your brain isn't like reflectively evaluating these beliefs.
>> So you're in a different state of consciousness. So you So you >> I don't know what you mean by like different state of consciousness, but >> you know, you're not experiencing reality. You're experiencing I don't know like mental imagery.
>> Yeah. You're So okay, I'm equating that to a different state of consciousness because you said you're not thinking that hard. Like you're not using the same cognitive processes and things like that that you do in waking life for whatever reason. You're just not using those things.
>> Yeah. And there's like a good reason for that. You know, your brain is in like a very like going with the flow type state. And it's good that it it's doing that. You know, your brain is doing like a lot of repair work while you're sleeping. Um, >> so, you know, it's it's trying to drain out all the toxins that have built up in your brain over the over the day. Um, >> right. And it doesn't to have like those like very like critical, reflective, aware parts of you activated. Well, that's just not very good for you to to do like repair on. You know, you're you're wearing down the thing that you're repairing with the process at that point. Like, you know, why not just be awake or something?
>> Yeah. You have to your body kind of puts you into this different state so that you're not waking yourself up with all this critical thinking and you know over or not overanalyzing but hyperanalyzing stuff because you need to stay asleep.
You don't need to be waking up every time something doesn't make sense. So it's a pers to me that's perspective.
That's you could call it consciousness.
You could call it >> but that's what it is to me. What do you think?
>> Yeah. Yeah. I think that that's I think I agree with that. Although I think what I'm saying is that you know the regions that are getting so you you dream during uh your REMM cycle um and there's different parts of your brain that get repaired during different slight cycles.
So um the parts that are getting repaired during REMM um are not getting used very much during REMM. They're getting used like comparatively less and that just makes sense.
>> Yeah. So, so when you're in that state of being, when you're asleep, then that's what's going on. And so, you're not able to necessarily tell the difference between what's happening there and a true a truer reality.
Obviously, it's happening in your brain.
You could probably still argue that it's somewhat tethered to reality. Like, there might be some crazy things that happen in there, but >> in the same way that hallucinations are.
Yeah.
is what?
>> In the same way like hallucinations are real. Yeah.
>> Right. Exactly. So, um, so it's a perspective thing. And so, when you when you basically wake up, then you're you're in reality.
You're in probably as real a perspective as you're used to, right?
>> Sure. Um, so, so then I think that I'm assuming that what you think is that this reality, the way that that we think, the way you think, the way I think, the way humanity thinks is the ultimate perspective. It's the ultimate, you know, I I guess this is probably what you would consider um, getting close to objective truth, like this reality that we live in.
Um, I mean I think things go like way deeper than this. No, I think that for example that the universe is ultimately grounded in like some sort of like quantum system. I think that there are lots of like unintuitive things about ultimate reality and about like the quantum realm. Um, >> but I mean, well, I guess yeah, that it's not it's not quite what I think, but certainly I don't think that there are like spiritual things. I don't see any reason to think that.
>> And I don't see any reason to think that I'm going to have like an experience after I die.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Well, that's just it's interesting that you say that like you know and I even like I mean you obviously can't see me but I could see you and like seems like your eyes kind of lit up when you started talking about that and um I don't know maybe there's some genuine excitement there. It seems like, but then but then just like like you just said in closing with that statement, you don't see why there's a reason to to go to a spiritual reality and in and all of those deeper things.
Um, and you know, like I I don't know. I mean like what besides the logic, is there any other reason why that that jump is hard to make like that? Because if you if you can if you can kind of attach to infinite regress, right? That's that's a big concept. And I don't think that that's simple. Even though you you know, like you might think otherwise, maybe you're just way smarter than me, but I don't think that that's a simple thing.
I think that you have to have a certain level of just kind of confidence, faith, you know.
>> Oh, no. I don't know. Yeah. Um, no, I don't think that that's like an article of faith, you know. I I think that we have good reasons to think that it's true. All the arguments against it are really bad. Um, and sometimes reality is complex. You know, if reality I don't think a thing being complex is a reason to not believe it. I think a thing having no evidence or being like demonstrabably false is a reason to not think it.
>> Yeah. I mean, and I'm not saying fa when I say faith, you might you might import some meaning into that. You might think >> it's like a belief with no evidence, >> right? So faith ini infiday that means with confidence.
>> Oh well, >> confide faith.
>> Yeah. Then this would just be like like equivocating on the term in a religious context. Faith refers to believing without evidence. No, it doesn't.
>> Yes, it does. I can look up the definition for you.
>> Yeah, go ahead. Look it up in the Bible.
What is faith?
>> Well, I can give you the the the dictionary definition, but isn't the in the Bible, isn't it like belief in the things unseen and like the things hoped for?
>> That's that's super close, man. That's >> Yeah, something like that.
It's um faith is the evidence of things hoped for. Evidence of things hoped for and the substance substance of things not seen. So it's not blind. You have to I mean we're we're all living by faith to a degree. Even though that word >> is there evidence for what?
>> For God.
>> Yeah. There there is evidence for God.
And this is the thing, right? So you have a you have a bunch of evidence for why you live your life the way you do and so do I. Right? And so there is evidence there. Now can you prove your your belief system to me? No, you can't because you're again you're you're >> wait which which part do you want me to prove?
>> Can you prove anything?
>> Yeah.
>> Can you prove anything?
>> Yeah.
>> I Yes. I I I I think I think that proof I'm going to define proof like this 100% without a shadow of a doubt.
>> Yeah, you can prove lots of things.
>> Okay.
>> Like for example, beliefs exist. You know, if I were to believe that beliefs don't exist, well then, you know, we it's self-defeating. You know, the opposite is literally impossible for beliefs to not exist because you would have to believe that beliefs don't exist.
Well, there's people who don't believe that.
>> Like who?
>> I mean, I've talked to plenty of people like that >> that don't believe that beliefs exist.
They believe that beliefs don't exist.
>> There's Yeah, there are people who who think that there's people who think that everything is super subjective.
>> I don't think that relative.
>> I don't think there are people that believe Whoa, whoa. I don't Can you name me like a person that believes that beliefs don't exist?
>> Name you a person?
>> Yeah. like a like a name like somebody I've talked to.
>> Yeah. Well, are you saying like you've encountered these people? I I straight up don't I straight up don't believe you.
>> Oh, yeah. I have.
>> I straight up don't believe you. Yeah.
>> You don't have to believe.
>> It's like it's like straightforwardly gibberish.
>> Yeah. I I agree with you. But people do.
Like I've talked to people who have said there is no reality is what you make it.
There's no you know what you know whatever you believe that's that's what you could do. There is nothing that's grounded in a ultimate reality. There's nothing that's grounded in a in a objective reality. Everything is subjective. And then you could also give you can make the trick statement of okay well do do you believe that? You know or or you know is that absolutely true? Or it's like when people say when people say nobody knows man then you say well do you know that right? So you can kind of flip it, but people people say that stuff all the time. They people they people >> Yeah, it's self-defeating. It's like obviously self- undermining. So, you know, that's something you can prove with 100% certainty is that beliefs exist, >> you know.
>> Well, me and you are on the same page when it comes to that. But the my point being is that could you prove that to that person?
>> What do you mean pro like are you saying like change that person's mind? I don't think that you need to change a person's mind for the belief or for the proof to be successful.
Yeah, I I guess I could kind of I guess I could kind of agree with that.
Um I guess my my point is that because there's a bunch of us here on this planet and we're all operating with this with these different beliefs or these different systems of of worldview.
Then to say that you can prove something to somebody right I can prove something to you to me that implies that they are going to then after you've proven it say yes that is true because you've now proven it to me.
>> Oh no I don't think that follows. I think what proof means is that you're presenting something that if the premises are true then the conclusion must also be true and the premises are true.
>> Now if they if they don't agree uh that you know they accept the premises they accept that if the premises are true then the conclusion follows and then they reject the conclusion. Well this person's just living in cognitive dissonance. I don't care what this person thinks. the proof was presented whether they like it or not, >> right? But in that person's mind, there's something that's blocking them from that proof, that truth, right? And so, who's to say that same thing's not blocking us? Because >> because they haven't presented any proof.
>> They haven't presented an argument.
Their premises aren't true. The conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.
>> Say, but that but then, you know, like says who, right? says you says me.
>> We would need to get into like a specific argument. I mean, if you have like an argument that establishes this, you know, if I accept the premises and I accept that it's valid, then I would need to accept the conclusion.
>> I I agree with you. I So, like this is so I I believe that we have a God-given faculty called reason and logic, right?
And so if if I don't believe that that's been given to like let me try to simplify it a little bit even more. So I'm ass I'm I'm I'm assuming that this other person I'm talking to is operating within a a realm of logic in and integrity like integ integral logic let's call it where it's like hey if it doesn't make sense I'm going to abandon it. If it doesn't follow logically, I'm going to abandon it. And I believe that because I believe that there is a pure and perfect logic that that has been endowed to humanity. And although our logic is now flawed because of sin, because of corruption, to the original design, right? Um we still have that fingerprint of that good of that logic, that gift.
>> You have the evidence. Yeah. And to be clear, I'm not asking you to prove this, but you have any evidence that it's true?
>> That what I just said is true.
>> Yeah.
>> Um, well, so we're having this conversation now.
Obviously to uh to like agree to to be able to even agree on what language is in such a quick way with one another and to be able to have a discussion. There has to be um a basis for that, let's call it. Um, so that that points to the potential of a set of of of just objective logic that is almost like hardwire in hardwired into us. And that can be degraded in time because of our own because of other things. It's like we also have a will and we do things that are illogical because we just feel like we want to do it and we we want to have sensations and we blah blah blah. But there is something in there that is grounded in just objectivity and >> why does that need God?
>> Yeah. Yeah. Like >> no no why why would that need God?
>> Why does it need God?
>> Yeah. Why would we need God in order to be able to have things like logic?
>> Well, so let's do let's do an anti-argument. So, how could we not without an ultimate um it being grounded in the mo like in the most ultimate being with the with the most ultimate reality. So, for example, if you talk like what if it was just what if we just devolved with this, right? But it's it's unguided processes that produce this mind. Okay, how can I trust it? That goes back to the same thing we're talking about. How can you prove anything to anybody if we're all just kind of randomly bits and pieces put together trying to communicate with one another thinking that we're doing something right? How can we even trust our own minds in that po at that point?
>> How can you trust that God gave you your mind and reasoning faculties? Wouldn't you have to use the reasoning faculties that God gave you to arrive at that conclusion >> in part? Yeah.
>> So, okay. Sure. So, then you have no problem with like circular justifications. Then the atheist can say the same thing. Well, you know, I use my reliable sense data to verify my reliable sense data. They can say exactly what you're saying.
>> But I don't it doesn't end there for me.
It's not an end- all beall like there's other parts of me. There's other part there's other parts of you >> there. Have you always behaved rationally and within the realm of logic? Right.
>> Nope.
>> Why?
>> Yeah, that's a great question. There are evolutionary reasons. The evolutionary explanation for why you would do that is because the human mind uses a lot of heruristics, a lot of shortcuts in our reasoning. Um, you know, we will reason that when there's like a bump in the middle of the night that there's like a person in your house because assuming that there's a threat there is what allows you to respond even when there isn't one. It's better to respond whenever there's like the possibility of a threat, even if there isn't one in terms of surviving. You know, when the bush rustles and you assume it's a predator and run away, you survive more than when you don't assume that it's a predator and it turns out to be a predator. Um, so our brain is riddled with cognitive biases and for that reason we oftent times have flawed logic when we're making snap judgments, but we also have the ability to reason through things more carefully.
>> Yeah, that's that's good for like that scenario. I I agree with that, you know, and I mean I think that even in that moment, you're still using logic now. It may be with limited information, right?
So now that goes back to a perspective thing like I was talking about. You have a limited perspective. You you don't have all the information so you make a snap judgment like you said. Totally agree with that. You're still b you're still operating within logic. You can't know like everything we do we can't know everything. And so everything we're making is kind of a snap judgment. If you if you actually if that's what you define as a snap judgment, you know, to some degree or another, it's all snap judgments because you're kind of based you're you're making decisions based on the amount of information you have at the time, right? So, it's all it's all could be argued as the under this umbrella of snapped jud snap judgment to a degree maybe. No, I'm specifically speaking of like reflectively thinking through it in like a like a more slow deliberate way where you're actually trying to piece it apart as opposed to something that's like near instantaneous coming to conclusions instead of like thinking through the conclusion. Like if you ask your mind to generate an answer to a question instantly, it will. Your mind will use heristics to develop an answer instantly. But you can also develop an answer by thinking through by like piecing the question up and by thinking through the components um by recognizing these cognitive biases and going slow. So the human brain is capable of operating in both modes.
>> Sure. I I I mean I agree. Um my my only point is that I I like so I'm not saying that like like we've we've done that before, right? And so then you kind of learn from that as part of the learning experience. you say, "Okay, every single thing that goes bump in the night is not a lion or whatever it is." You start to learn over time, okay, I can ignore that. I can stay asleep. Um, and stuff.
So, you know, we we learn. So, but I'm saying >> I'm sure that you have done some I'm sure we've all done something where we go into it logically saying, "This is the wrong choice to make. This literally is the wrong choice to make. I'm going to do it anyway." So we don't just we're not just So my point with that is to go back to what you were saying about the atheist having a logical like basically using this kind of like brain that's been quote unquote evolved that we can't trust because it's an unguided evolution unguided process.
>> Whoa. I super don't grant that you can't trust your brain. There are circumstances where you should be skeptical of the answer that your brain has produced for you.
Okay, that's good. That's good. So, and so that that's that's what I'm kind of what I'm saying is that when I make decisions like like for example when you said, hey, you giving evidence for God, aren't you using your brain? And isn't your logic flawed?
Can't the atheist kind of say the same thing for when they use their brain to have evidence against the existence of God? And I'm saying that well my I can give other reasons beside that that are outside of the realm of logic for why I believe what I the in and the God of the Bible.
So I can give emotional reasons, experiential reasons. Um you know like it's it's not it's not all logic. It's not all, you know, if if if somebody says, "Hey, why do you love your husband? Why do you love your wife? Why do you love your kids?" You can give a reason for that for sure, but then there's just part of it that's that's outside of reason. And the the Bible says that that we love because God loved us first. So, you're Hello.
>> Hey, I'm here. Um, so so there's so so anyways, there's there's a reason for that. There's there's I use logic, but there's also a a a spiritual thing that's there, too, that I'm acknowledging. And and you would say you you would say that you don't acknowledge that because you don't see any evidence for it is what I'm assuming, right?
>> Yeah. But I I do also want to just make sure that we're tracing the conversation as it unfolded just now that I asked you for the evidence that God exists. You said, "Well, we need God to account for logic." And then now it sounds like you agree that we don't need God to account for logic. I was not trying to give a disproof now by saying that logic could have came from you know evolution like our capacity to represent things produces our you know faculty of of reason. Um that's not supposed to be like a disproof of God. What that's supposed to be is an accounting for how we have logic without God. Um so it seems like indeed we we don't have evidence for God's existence. Like the first piece of evidence kind of didn't get us there.
So, >> so you're you're asking me for I I don't know if I followed that whole whole thing there, but you're asking me for evidence of God's existence.
>> Yeah. Um, so I gave the the logical the logic statement of it being grounded in an actual being that gave us logic to be able to observe, gave us an imagination to be able to contemplate.
Um because we, you and I as separate people are able to converse and not be talking about totally different things and do that quickly. And I and I don't I don't take that for granted. I think that that basically that shows that there's something inside of you and I both that agrees there's something inside of all people that agrees that this is how we do this and that and the the only reason I can't attribute that to anything but um but God who says that I'm going to endow man with this ability to be able to reason. Re reason with me and reason with one another.
>> So >> So you're saying that and and you you're saying that you don't grant that evolution produced our logic?
>> No, it doesn't seem like you have a reason. So okay, first of all, no reason to think that it didn't. Second of all, good reason to think that it did. You know, um, logic comes about just by being able to represent things in your mind, represent like propositions in your mind, represent like states of affairs in your mind. You're able to picture it. You're able to like think through it, think what would follow from that. Um, you're you're capable of doing all of that, which has huge evolutionary advantages. You can plan how you're going to survive. You can deliberate with your fellow humans about what to do. Um, and here's something that the God picture will not be able to account for. You won't be able to account for this with the fall of man.
The cognitive biases that we have are ones that arise strictly because of evolutionary circumstances. All of our cognitive biases have an evolutionary explanation to them. You know, confirmation bias, the fact that we don't give up our beliefs even when confronted with evidence. It has like the evolutionary advantage that you're able to um like quickly reason and and like form um like all of these uh heruristics and that you're not going to change your mind that you're it it's been stable in the past so it will be stable in the future.
Uh even when you're presented with evidence that it might not be. Um and I think probably the most compelling one is the agency bias. We're inclined to give agency to things even when there isn't any. Um the the holy [ __ ] there's someone in my house. Whenever there's like a when something like falls off of the wall, it's like oh boy, like let's get the gun or something, you know, there's like a robber in the house, even though there hasn't been one. Um this is explained by evolution, but it's not really explained like why would we have that specific one? Like I know you want to say that the fall of man is why we have cognitive biases in general, but why would why would we have these specific ones?
So, so this this is these are all in the realm of logic, right? But there have you ever done something that you don't want to do?
>> Yeah.
>> Have you ever said like, "Hey, I I don't want to do this, but I'm going to do it anyway."
>> Yeah. Because I wanted to do it more than I didn't want to do it. like like I mean I don't I guess maybe I don't I might not want to ask you what it was but I'm just saying that to me is it it where's the evolutionary thing with that I don't I don't see that that to me is more a thing that's operating in in a will of a person you have the logic serves you you don't serve your logic your logic is not you know the slave wave master and you're just following it. You even said yourself that you will take a step outside of yourself to consider the way you're thinking about something. So there's something that's so that's there's something that's outside of you that's saying that I'm going to use my logic tool to figure this out. But then if I still want to do this thing even though I know logically I shouldn't do it, I'm going to do it anyway because I'm going to my will I'm gonna this is what I want to do, right? And so that's that's that's something that I don't see where the evolutionary logic of that is like you know >> yeah I can give you an example like okay you know when I was in high school um you know I wanted to ask this girl out but I was terrified of doing that but you know I overcame being terrified to ask her out and of course get rejected but you know there's like a really good evolutionary explanation for both of those things. You know, there's like obviously the fact that we're driven towards like forming relations, specifically like romantic, potentially sexual relations. Huge evolutionary reasons for that. Um, and then flip side, there's good evolutionary reasons why we would feel tremendous fear to put ourselves out there, to put ourselves in potentially socially damaging situations where the outcome could be really bad for us socially. You know, it could be catastrophic. Um, so we have good reasons why we would both want to do that thing and not want to do that thing. And we overcome the the not wanting to do that thing because we want to do it more than we don't want to do it.
>> Right? And and and the reason we want to do it more is because what? Or what's what's the ultimately at the core of it?
the reason you ask the girl out anyway or the reason you do whatever it is you do that you that you don't want to do. You know, at the core of it, what what's what's the motivation?
>> The motivation is that I wanted a girlfriend. You know, I thought that it would do all these things for me that at the time, uh, you know, I was like convinced are like the things that I need, um, but now I know are like gibberish reasons to want a partner.
Right. So, and I mean I've done the same thing. Right. So, but so then but you just said it because you wanted it because you wanted you know it was for you. Right.
>> Yeah.
>> It it's basically evolution basically assumes we're operating out of self-interest.
>> Right now we we can we can make uh small sacrifices for the greater good of our self-interest. So I can like you know like for example I'll give up four years of my life of of partying and and just you know seeking pleasure and I'll buckle down and I'll go to school because ultimately I want to sacrifice.
I want to, you know, put myself through this because at the other end of that, I actually get more b more benefit than if I didn't, right? Or I'm going to go ahead and help you out because, you know, um ultimately if I help you out, I might feel good about myself. Um or you might be in a position where you have a lot of resources and me helping you uh you know you'll you'll return the favor like 10fold or whatever. But at the end of it it's all about it's like evolution basically is saying we're operating out of self-interest. We're trying to preserve ourselves, right?
>> Uh not quite >> okay >> close but not quite.
>> Evolution operates at the level of the gene. um your genes are going to spread.
Especially when these mechanisms, these cognitive mechanisms were evolving. Your genes were confined to a relatively small community of humans.
>> So survival of the community also leads to survival of the gene. If you have an entire community who has some gene towards helping the community, then individuals in this community are going to that that gene specifically is going to continue in so far as like one person sacrifices themselves for the other.
That gene is going to get selected because the community as a whole continues forward.
So, >> okay, >> there there are evolutionary explanations for things like altruism, but I still haven't heard like the the God explanation for why we're inclined to ascribe agency to things or why we're inclined to like catastrophize things like why would we why if the fall of man happened would those be the specific cognitive biases? There are good evolutionary reasons. It doesn't seem like there are good religious reasons.
Well, I I'm kind of alluding to those.
Um, can you hear me? Okay.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. I'm I'm in my I'm in my car right now, so it might switch to my Bluetooth.
>> You You can't drive.
>> It's against TikTok terms of service. If you need to go, you can.
>> Okay. Okay.
Let me Let me park real quick.
>> Hear your thought. I I I will I'll I'll let another caller >> come, but I I want to hear your thoughts on this. So to to cut to the chase, what I'm kind of what I'm alluding to is that evolution says we're so evolution says that at the gene level, we're trying to we're trying to keep our gene alive and how and whatever way possible we can do that. That's what we're trying to do, right? So So there's so there's it's not it's not like 100% tied to self-interest. you maybe you could say like if if my child is carrying my gene then I'll give myself up for my child because they have more potential >> future forf facing potential than I do um with the age thing right so >> um so I get I get that you know it's still it's I still look at that as being in my interest um when you dress it down because um because I'm looking at my legacy maybe in that um and but there's but but It's not it's not the same as like you know I will grant grant this that it's not the same as me being a super tyrant like boss at work and like making a you know like work getting the back like getting up rich off the backs of other people like unjustly, right?
That's that's a different kind of self-centeredness than a man or a woman who gives up their life for for a child, right? Um, so there's there's degrees, but I will say that I think that when you dress it down, it there's still that root of self-centeredness at much of this. And so that's what I mean when we're we're talking about the fall. It's it's that so evolution um says that evolution is basically assuming that yeah we we we are self-interested and we should be self-interested and but we I think that we as people know that that's not the way it ought to be.
Um and so that ought inton there is that we should sacrifice ourselves for other image bearers of God. You know image bearer meaning that we were made in God's image um at the beginning and we still are but that image has been marred like a broken mirror. So, but we still have that image. And so, when we when we sacrifice for each other, that in and of itself is a godly thing.
That's a virtue because God himself did that and does that. And so, um, so like for example, there are many examples of sacrifices that have nothing to do with the gene level that happen.
And those are people um and you could parse it apart. Maybe there is still some self-interest in there.
>> Like what >> there but yeah, go ahead.
>> Well, I was just asking like what like what's an example of that?
I mean, I'd probably agree with that, but you know, you could chalk that up to saying that it's the logical thing to do, that there are logical reasons why you should be doing why you should be like acting from like a like a good kind of place and that you arrived at this uh by being reflective. Or maybe that, you know, you want to say that people um part of what goes into the genes is that because humans are very social creatures, we adapt a lot to our culture and our environments and our upbringings and that certain cultures, environments, and upbringings are going to produce people who are disposed towards acting in very kind ways. So even this comes back to evolutionary explanations.
>> I mean, so you could you could say that, right? Um, but that's I don't think that's the way we live our lives. Like I'm I'm going to tell you right now like I've heard stories of like so uh stories of of people who have given their lives um um and and and like you can Google this, but like there's the story of like um I think it's the Hacksaw Ridge story, the guy who or yeah, I think that's what it is. But there's a guy, a World War II vet, um, hero who went in without being armed, rescued a bunch of people. He was a Christian. The reason he rescued him was because he because from his worldview, the stakes were were so high.
If these guys were to die in war not knowing God, they'd be eternally separated from him.
>> So his so his conviction was so high, he went in, risked his own life for guys he didn't know. He joined the military premeditated on this before he knew anybody of anyone he'd be saving. And these guys, who knows who these guys were? They could have been, I mean, they're at war, but they could have been, you know, great guys. They could have been bad guys. They could have been a mix, right? He wasn't basing it off of whether or not they were worthy of being saved. He was basing it off of a conviction that God, that's a God-given one that says these people are made in the image, his image. These people are worth they are in have infinite worth and they are worth sacrificing for. Um and that's one example. There's examples of gone into >> place that's like super easy to account for. This is like the exact sort of like social factors that I'm talking about.
You know, if you're told that you're gonna get tortured forever for not saving these people or that, you know, it's like infinite bliss uh if you live a good life, um obviously your beliefs are going to impact how you act and how you respond to certain situations. You know, if you convince me into believing that there's like a person with a chainsaw outside of my door, well, obviously I'm not going to leave there. I'm I'm responding to my beliefs in those situations. So this is all evolutionarily explainable.
>> Well, so he didn't do it because he did he he didn't do what he did because he didn't want to go to hell.
>> He didn't want them to go to hell.
>> But even that desire is something that's like socially embedded in him that this like thought that it's like >> because we have empathy, you know, we have empathy neurons, you know, we >> do you have that? Do do you I mean I I don't I I'm not I'm not out there doing that, bro. I I don't know if you are. Do you have that level of empathy? Where does that come from? Is that just like evolution? Yeah.
>> Yeah. Empathy is definitely evolutionary.
>> Yeah, we have good reason.
>> Yeah, but there's plenty of there's plenty of crazy stuff going on in the world where you could jump in there.
We're in America. I I guess. And I'm not trying to I'm saying this is me. like I'm not I'm not out there doing this this stuff. Um it's easy to kind of you know talk have these talks and kind of theor theorize about yeah well this is what I would do or this is you know we don't let's let's just be honest we're not living our lives like that. I think that that that's not something that is just embedded in a person.
>> Uh sure. I mean, I think that that's something that you have to be like so well h I don't know if that's true.
>> I think that some people are disposed based on like their nature and upbringing, you know, their genes um to behave in specific ways. Like I'm sure people are there are certain genes that are going to incline you more towards like pro-social behaviors and certain upbringings that are going to make you uh more self-sacrificing and certainly beliefs that are going to do the same.
But the question is whether or not they're true. And no matter whether or not they're true, evolution is able to account for all of this. All the data is easily accountable for.
>> I I I like the theory of evolution. I I what you're saying makes sense. It's just that I don't see where people live their lives like that. Like I I don't see if you Ian like if you and I were having this conversation and we were in you know um I don't know like Nigeria or some where people are getting mass executed for being Christians or if we were in some obscure part of the world where people were were experiencing great suffering and we were entering into that suffering with them saying that hey we want this is you know this is part of our evolutionary bent and this is why this is valuable then then maybe I would say yeah there's something to this I don't see that what I do see are Christians doing those things that's that's evidence right there you know so >> you don't think that evolution can account for people responding to the things that they believe >> you don't think evolution's capable of accounting for like acting on the on the beliefs or like the things that you've deliberated on and have decided to act No, I I I >> No, I don't I I don't think that I mean like look, I I like I said, I get what you're saying, but the level of conviction it takes, I don't think it's easy.
>> I I feel like that we're I feel like that with this, we're assuming that being self-sacrificing in these scenarios is just an easy thing that doesn't come with a bunch of fear. Like you just you said earlier, you went to go talk to a girl and experienced fear in that or experienced like >> Yeah. So that think about that. Now think about the magnitude of reflection it takes to enter into a situation where you could lose your life. Not just like your kind of sense of pride with a rejection, but your actual physical life, right?
>> Yeah.
That's where that's where it gets, you know, like so that's what I'm saying is that like I don't think that's easy. Just the same way that you talking to that girl, even though that's an easier thing to do, >> it's not easy, >> but if the stakes are high enough, >> you know, if you think that what you have to gain is so valuable, >> then of course it still becomes like the rational choice, right? Like if if indeed heaven is real then that is the rational choice to do. So you know if you believe that heaven is real and you're >> deliberating rationally you're like weighing things weighing their values weighing well you know if I do this it achieves this level of value. If I do that it achieves that level of value. I guess I'll do this. Um all of this is explainable by evolution.
All you need is the capacity to form beliefs including false beliefs and then the capacity to deliberate rationally on those beliefs and then make decisions according to the values that you think are associated there and then you can arrive at how it would be the rational decision under the framework that you should go save these people and self-sacrifice.
>> So then what do you then what do you honestly think about the guy who does that >> being that you don't believe in but being that you don't believe in an afterlife? Do you think he's foolish?
>> I that's certainly not something that I would do.
>> I think that that's cool that people do that. Um, however, I think that he's gravely misweed the value. I think it's cool when people do that. I think it's very praiseworthy when people do that. I don't think it's obligatory to put yourself your life on the line for like strangers. Like I don't think you are obligated to risk your life to save some stranger somewhere. You know, I think that you're obligated to help strangers when you can. Um, and you're obligated to not like kill people or whatever. I don't think that you have an obligation to put yourself on the line for a stranger, you know? And I think that that person he probably like pretty clearly did like the math wrong, >> right? So, this so my point would be that I I appreciate the the intellectual honesty too, you know, from from your part. And the thing is that obviously if you had someone you loved who was in a situation where somebody put their life on the line to rescue them to save their life, you would appreciate that, right?
Yeah, I would.
>> Even though that >> even though even if that person you don't care if that person you don't care like you you would appreciate that, right? So but >> but you like what you said, they're not obligated to do that, but you appreciate the fact that they did.
>> Yeah, I'd appreciate it. It's praiseworthy. Things can be praiseworthy without being obligatory.
Oh, for sure. So then my my my thing is that the evolutionary worldview relieves you of obligation whereas the Christian worldview puts you in that and you're not and again you're not like obligated in a certain >> h >> who cares. It's true.
>> Yeah. But who cares? It's true doesn't save your relative if they're in a bad situation and gets you know like >> that that's what I'm saying. when you live your >> less true.
>> Yeah. But but but at the same time, my whole point is that I'm I'm saying you you're saying it's true, right? But I'm saying we're we're we're having two worldviews come into collision here.
We're looking at which one is is a is a is a higher virtue or a higher worldview. There's one that is >> Do you think wisdom is a virtue?
>> Yeah.
>> Oh, sure. And do you think that believing false things means that you're wise? Like if your entire worldview is based around false things, would you be wise?
>> No, you'd be stupid.
>> Sure. Yeah. So indeed it actually in order to assess the virtue, you need to assess the truth.
>> Yeah, you're right. I think wisdom is a virtue, but also love is a virtue and love is the highest virtue because at the end of all wisdom and at the end of all knowledge and at the end of all hope is love, right? Love, love is the umbrella that captures it all because that is the self-sacrifice. That is the wisest thing to do. That is the greater good. But you have to have a conviction that knows that there is a someone who loves you in order to lay your life down for someone else to give them love, right? And so if you don't have that, then yeah, you're not obligated to anything. You're obligated to yourself.
>> Well, certainly there are times where you shouldn't self-sacrifice. That's like obviously true. you know, if you're failing all of your classes in high school be because you keep like, I don't know, ditching your classes to go um I don't know, walk old ladies across the street. You know, that's that's very kind of you to do. You probably have a great heart. You should go to your classes.
You know, you you probably owe that to yourself.
>> Well, the whole point is that like we could we could argue that either way, you know, and I think that you're right.
I don't think that that ultimately that is the truth. I think that you could argue that either way, but yeah, like I I'll for the sake of this conversation, I'll kind of somewhat agree to you, but you did say at the end there, you owe that to yourself, right? It's still the the evolutionary worldview still grounds you in this self-preservation. It still grounds you in this obligation to yourself. You're not obligated to anybody else. And so therefore, >> whateverbody >> Well, you Well, this is I'm just using this. Isn't this what you're saying?
>> Obligations to yourself entail obligations to other people in order to I don't know have something like self-respect. You need to be a fair judge of people. You need to know yourself in order to judge yourself. And in order to know yourself, you need to be a reliable judge of people. Now, let's say you're a reliable judge of people. you're either acting on those judgments or you're not. When you deem that certain people are owed certain things and you don't act on those judgments of what they're owed, then you can't have self-respect because you know that you're doing wrong. Um, so the only way that you can end up with this self-respect is by being the reliable judge of people and then acting on those judgments. You need to give people what they're owed.
If we got what we're owed though, wouldn't that that would that would that would be bad news for us.
>> Why?
>> Right? Because well, because we've all done bad, we've all sinned. And the Bible says that we've all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. So if we got what we were owed, it wouldn't be a good thing. We need mercy, you know.
So we need mercy for each other. And like for example, like have you ever lied?
>> Yeah, I've lied. And you know, I think that I think that I deserve like some sort of consequence in those circumstances. And by the way, if you're if you reject that we're deserve or that >> you know, we deserve what we're owed, then you just reject justice wholesale.
Justice is people getting what they deserve, >> right? But I don't reject justice. I think that there's a higher virtue than justice and it's called mercy.
>> And I think that you we like we could we could say we could have again this is a theoretical conversation Well, you want mercy for lying, right?
>> I think that I deserve punishment if I tell a lie, especially one that has like big consequences to it. I don't know.
This is something I'm still thinking through, but I think I when I when I read up about punishment and theories of justice, I came away with the the belief that it's not clear to me that people deserve mercy. Mercy is like letting people off the hook for what they what they're deserved.
>> I 100% agree with you. People do not deserve >> then why give it to them?
It's it's literally like definitionally it's an injustice to give people mercy.
Uh, hello.
Are you there?
>> Hello?
>> Yeah. Can you hear me?
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. So, I was just saying you you mercy is a gift and you ex you I don't think that you well I I would assume you wouldn't say you deserve mercy.
>> Nope. It's like strictly an injustice.
>> But you would take mercy, right? Or would you just say no, give me justice?
>> I think that you ought receive the punishment.
>> So, >> I don't I think that you ought not take the mercy >> even though people probably would, but I think that's selfish. I think that when you deserve a punishment, you should take that punishment.
>> I don't I want to I wanna I think like I I I want to believe you, man. I do want to believe you. I just don't know anybody. Like especially with you saying that you're not obligated to help anybody. I'm like, why would that opposite of what I said?
>> I'm sorry. I don't want to misrepresent you, man. I I like I'm just like I guess I'm I'm not stating it right.
Let me just totally wipe that from the record. I'm just saying that when you're when you're operating with a certain level of self-interest, right?
Let's call it that. Why wouldn't you take mercy that's available? Like, are you telling me that if you got a if a cop pulled you over and said, "Hey, I caught you speeding." And you knew you were speeding, right? But the cop says, "Hey, listen. I'm going to let you off with a warning. You're going to sit there and say, "No, sir. Give me the ticket. I want justice." Is that how you live your life? It's a question of whether or not you deserve that punishment for that crime. So that would come down to the question about whether or not you actually deserve to be fined in this way on the basis of doing the crime of speeding, which I don't know. I have no idea why that would be an appropriate punishment. Maybe it is.
I've never thought about it before. But >> yeah, >> to the extent like if if indeed that is what I deserve, then you should. It's like trivial.
>> That's well let's let's put it like this. Were like in this example were was this theoretical person speeding >> and you know like they were right.
>> Yeah. Let's say that they're going like 10 over or something.
>> Yeah. So and even that even saying 10 over right even if if if you're technically if we want to be technical about justice if you're going a mile over you're you're within breach you're you've breached the law. So we can't even assume a certain amount of grace >> because grace is also a virtue that's that's higher than justice. Justice is basically >> I don't I don't care about the law. I care about desserts. I care about what you deserve. The law can be unjust.
>> So then >> and also punishments can come in degrees based on the magnitude of the infraction.
>> You could say that you deserve a worse punishment if you've crossed the threshold into unsafe driving. And to the extent that you've crossed that threshold, you can deserve more and more severe punishments, >> right? I mean, and what what what makes it different though? Like what makes that different? Because that's that's a key that's a key insight that you're bringing up here. And I'm curious in your world view, what makes how do you determine whether or not something is just? Because justice is the world is like you're saying justice is very high in your worldview. So how do you determine if something is just?
>> Yeah. If if you're treating like cases alike to the extent that you're able to universalize it, it's justice means treating like cases alike.
>> Yeah. I feel like that's still somewhat a little subjective because you can make an argument from history that there were a lot of common practices that were somewhat universalized that um people thought were just and they >> for example slavery >> slavery wasn't universalized. The slaves didn't own slaves.
>> Well, I mean when you say universalized what >> I mean everyone can do it without contradiction. You can't not everyone can do slavery because then you would have like you would end up in this society where everyone's a slave and indeed there are no slave masters.
Everybody is owned by everybody.
And this is this is a perfect example of a thing that you can't universalize.
>> Okay. So then so then is there anything that we have universalized? Can you give me an example of what it actually >> I'm saying that we ought to do this not that we have done this >> that you can't universalize it. It's unjust.
>> So then we're really still in the somewhat like not totally subjective, but we don't have a real world example either way.
>> Well, so you're saying that >> subjective the Okay. I don't know if you're aware of this about ethics, but ethics are saying the things that you ought do >> to the extent that people don't do these, they're unjust, >> right? So when I give the example of when when I'm saying you're saying that it needs to be universal.
>> Yeah. Universalizable >> to understand that it's actually >> it doesn't Oh, sorry. That's a clarification. It doesn't need to be universal. It needs to be universalizable.
>> Okay. So then I Okay. For it to be just um >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. I guess Yeah. that I I I do I do a I do see that I I can I agree with that. I just I don't see how we as humanity have have come to that. I I look at that as there has to be an ultimate lawgiver and that goes back to God. I I don't see how we accomplish this universal, you know, aught. Um, we haven't, you know, and so, but we're still op we're still operating within the realm of what's just and what's, you know, so so we're so we're still maybe we're still disagreeing, which means that our definition of justice from a human perspective is in subject is kind of subjective because some people will agree that this law is just, others won't. But we're still all pursuing justice. And that seems like a vain pursuit if we're waiting to universalize or or if we're waiting to determine that this is a universal eye because we don't even agree on the on that.
>> Yeah. Sorry. I was looking for a quote from a paper that I read a while ago about punishment. Um but I think this quote kind of conveys my thoughts on why you should accept a punishment that you deserve. To punish a man is to treat him as an equal. To be punished for an offense against rules is a sane man's right. To punish somebody is to say that you are equal to me but you did wrong and for that reason you need to receive this punishment. Now you know this is what you get in virtue of being an autonomous individual the same as the rest of us.
I feel you. I I mean I think I don't agree with that. Um because I don't necessarily think that I don't buy into the idea that we're equal in every aspect. I think that we're equal in our humanity and our and our essence of of being humans, but I don't think that we're um identical in the roles that we have. For example, if my boss or if the president of the let's hyperbolize it, if if like the president of the United States or whatever says, "Hey, you're pardoned for XYZ."
um as opposed to giving me justice for the crime I've done, then that's that's that's a that's a leader of a country giving me who's not in a position of leadership a pardon. Now, we're he's not he's not greater than me in his humanity, but he's showing me in his in the position that he's in. He's giving me mercy.
Um and that's because he has the power to do that because we've all agreed as a collective >> country that we've we've given him or her that power >> and there are unjust ways. So I think that the just ways to give out the pardon is when the punishment was unjust to the extent that somebody gets convicted and sentenced to a prison sentence that they deserve.
If it's if the punishment matches the crime, then letting them off the hook is an injustice.
That's why when for example, you know, new pardons come out that say, you know, xyz person who did, you know, insane financial crimes one, two, and three.
Um, you know, he's been released by pardon after like three months. Uh, that's that's so crazy. That is just so crazy. that would I would say I would agree that's injustice because justice was not served right but in the in the in the Christian perspective in the Christian worldview that's what Jesus came to do and did is he took on that punishment and um that's a that's a very that's a a crazy concept to grasp that like how could Jesus how could this person that was living 2000 or whatever years ago um take on something that I'm that I did and how does that all what's the mechanics of all that? How does that work? Right? Um but if you break it down to a lesser kind of example um there there's some there's you can kind of grasp and somewhat conceive of of what's happening there. But that my point being and I can try to give an example if we want to but my my whole point being is that um justice I is if justice is not served or satisfied then that is injustice and I agree with you there.
But if justice is satisfied and mercy is shown, then we're good. And that's that's >> I agree with that. Although, >> yeah, >> that would be using mercy as like a like a remedy to already existing injustices.
So, if the only time when mercy comes in is to let you off the hook uh for when you've been over punished, well, I'm fine with that. I'm fine with letting people off the hook for when they've been overpunished. But when you're being punished the proper amount, I don't think that you deserve mercy.
>> I I don't think that that's even mercy.
I mean, would you agree? I I can't I don't think you can classify if you are being unjustly punished, then it's not mercy. It's just it's justice. Like if you if the if the if the punishment is lessened, that's justice. There's no mercy in that. Mercy has to be mercy by definition has to be when you don't get what you deserve.
>> Okay.
>> From a punishment standpoint.
>> Then then in that circumstance, mercy is just definitionally unjust.
>> Like it's always an injustice.
>> So So then so then if you don't get what you do deserve, right? So for example, let me give you an example of this.
you are speeding the whole speeding thing and your parents pay for the ticket, right?
You don't have to, you know, if you if you don't pay for the ticket, then you have to do community service. Your parents step in, they pay the fine. So, justice was served, right? The judge is not going to come after you. The judge is not going to say, "I reject your parents giving this payment."
>> I don't know if I would say that justice is served.
>> Well, the judge thinks so. So even though you might feel guilty about it, >> I don't care what the legal system says.
I care what's ethical. I care what's just, >> but that's you making that determination. So you're being your own judge.
>> There's a there's a literal judge saying you are dismissed, right? So So this judge, that's what they do. Now, I'm not and I I kind of agree with you. I mean, I don't think you can just, you know, check your brain at the door and say whatever the judge says and like abandon your own internal ethics. But let me let me give you like an example that kind of demonstrates this point. You know, let's say somebody like murdered three people and then they get convicted. You know, they're they're going to get the chair.
Um and then your friend Greg comes in and it's like, "Nope, it's okay. I'll get the chair." And then they [ __ ] like electrocute Greg instead. I don't And then the the killer is like free to go. I don't think that was just That seems like a grave injustice.
I mean, that to me seems like somewhat of a grave injustice, too. Yeah. I mean, that that seems like I don't know that I don't know that that's an example that I would that I would ag that that I would agree with. Like I I more so would >> Hello. You're off the app. You got to be on the app.
>> Oh, am I can you hear me now? Yeah.
>> Okay. Sorry about that. Um, yeah, I I I understand your point. Basically, you're saying it kind of it's kind of like an example of what I talked about with Jesus dying on the cross and rising again so that we are are no longer under the wrath of God and the law satisfied, etc. So, I get what your point is. Um, I don't, it's hard for me to make that jump there though and actually talk about that because that's um that in that sense like there's it it it's it's easier to me to talk about it in terms of your parents paying a ticket um because it's a little bit more relatable and and and I think we could build a little bit more from that point as opposed to jumping into the Greg scenario. So, um, but yeah, I would agree like just to not to like gloss over your your statement, I would agree that because you're basically there's somebody who's taken the fall for somebody else. Um, but if there and and I don't know that that's how our legal system actually works. that doesn't you know so now but the legal system does work in a way if there's a fine that your parents have to pay or that that's that you have to pay the courts don't care who pays it right >> so anybody could satisfy that >> fine and the court deems it justice That's I think it's an injustice. Yeah, I can give you an example of this too. you know, let's say that um because typically I think what what helps soften people's intuitions on this is that you know, typically the parents will give them a punishment anyway. Um but or wait, sorry, one sec, I got I got to reshare this stuff. Um yeah, okay, sorry. So um typically what what helps like soften people's intuitions on this matter um is that the parents are going to deal out some punishment to their child in this circumstance. Maybe they'll say no car.
Maybe they'll say like you will pay us back for this. Maybe they'll say like you're grounded or something like that.
Um, >> yeah.
>> But imagine a circumstance where the parents step in, pay the fine, and then buy the kid a new car, and then there's like no punishment at all, and the person like I don't know. Well, okay. Wait, you It's just speeding. But like, let's say they were like they were like recklessly speeding to the point where they genuinely do deserve a punishment. They're making people less safe because of their driving and the parents just step in and pay the fine and then nothing happens.
That's an injustice.
>> I don't know about that. I I don't know that that's an injustice because even if justice was served, you could still the person could still do the same thing. So even if they got the even if the fine was on them and they got their license taken away and they that doesn't mean they're going to learn their lesson and stop.
>> I think that they're >> justice.
>> Yeah. I I think it's like kind of baffling that you would disagree with that.
>> That you would disagree that it's like an injustice for like if some rich kid like is speeding like 130 miles an hour and then they they're getting fined like like thousands of dollars and then their parents step in, pay the fine, and then nothing happens to the rich kid ever at all.
>> You wouldn't think that that's an injustice.
Well, so I was just saying that you're you're kind of you're basing the justice off the like well, it seems like you're basing justice off the end result of the a behavioral change. Like the kid, the rich, you know, spoiled kid or whatever, >> they stop.
>> No, just the desserts.
>> Even if they don't stop, they still got the punishment. Even if they continue all their behavior, they got what they deserved and then they can get it again if they do the same thing again.
I don't think that justice deals in consequences. I think that justice deals in desserts, which by the way is just like the things that you deserve, >> right? Yeah. No, I'm following you.
Yeah. I mean, so I guess that's just that's so that I I I'm following you, but that's just hard for me to to kind of grasp because, you know, like the desserts, the deserving and justice being somewhat like, you know, with with the ugh with what ought to be and the universal um the theoretical universal application stuff that you were talking about earlier.
Yeah, I'm just it's hard to understand how you determine what's actually just what's just what what is justice.
>> So like when did it happen?
>> Yeah, you'll you can determine what's just on the basis of what's universalizable.
>> On the basis of Okay. Um what can we So for example, uh we brought up slavery earlier. Slavery is an injustice because necessarily the slave owner is not a slave. They're treating others in a way um that is not consistent with them doing this behavior. Like if this was done to them, they couldn't do the behavior in the first place. If they were enslaved, they couldn't be a person who owns slaves.
So slavery is impermissible.
H Uh, okay. Okay. I think I think I'm understanding. I mean, so you're saying, yeah, >> another example, murder. You know, if if you get murdered, you can't do a murder.
So, murder is impermissible. If everyone was doing what you were doing, well, you couldn't do the action in the first place.
>> Yeah. The universal Yeah, I I mean, I kind of see what you're saying there. Um what about I mean what else? What is there any other examples that you could give?
>> Um yeah I mean I I think like the general thing is that you you can't you ought not violate people's freedom and well-being unless they're violating people's freedom and well-being.
That in order to take any action, you're going to need your freedom and well-being. So, you can't take actions that take away other people's freedom and well-being unless they're like aggressing.
>> Okay. And so, how how do you I So, but then the level of the punishment. So, you said like for like earlier, what is that like? So, if if somebody's lying, right? Obviously, we all can't lie. That would be a bad world. That'd be like hell.
>> Um I'm not sure about that one.
>> I think that there are circumstances where lying is permissible.
Although >> well, okay.
>> Yeah, it's this is an example that people sometimes give as like something that fails the test of universalizability. It's not super clear why it would.
>> I mean, okay, I'll I'll kind of go there with you, but let's just say this. Do you agree that that maybe it's the exception, but it definitely can't be the rule? Uh I think that you have so h I think that you have reason not to do it in so far as towards good people you have reason not to deceive them but there are lots of circumstances where like in this specific circumstance with like an evil person it's totally fine to lie to an evil person.
>> Okay. So, um, yeah, I I guess I I kind of still look I'm It still seems like you're saying that's more the exception than the rule.
It still seems like you're saying, you know, there are circumstances, but for the most part, if we all just went around lying to each other, you know, that would be bad. Like there's conditions like you have to be an evil person. Um, however you come to that conclusion about a person, I don't know, that's a different conversation. But let's say we Yeah, that's the evil person. Okay. But then is everybody in the world evil? You know, I mean, we everybody can't lie. Is that a fair statement to say under this uh >> so universal?
>> What's that doesn't seem to be true is that it I think it probably depends on the lie.
>> So, for example, um deception, deceiving people when they are doing things that are permissible is impermissible. You can't deceive people who are doing things that are permissible.
Like you can deceive people who are violating other people's freedom and well-being because they're, you know, they're doing things that are not universalizable.
But to the extent that the person is doing something universalizable, well, you can't lie to them.
I >> think I lost you. Can you hear me?
>> Yeah.
>> But listen, we've been talking for like an hour and 40 minutes, so I'm probably going to move on to the next one.
>> Um, okay. This person's been waiting for like literal hours. I bet they're probably gone, but if they're not, then I will talk to them.
Hey, how's it going?
Sarah, are you there?
Hello?
I worry she's asleep.
Okay, sleep well. All right, let's read supers. Timmy T, thanks so much for the super chat. No one would believe if heaven wasn't promised. I think that's probably true.
Slow TDI, thanks so much for the super chat. He still can't name a person.
Name one person. Just one. I'll wait.
Uh JM, thanks so much for the super chat.
Thumbs up to you too, Grimmy. Thanks so much for the super chat. Appreciate you. It's a matter of priorities. Self-preservation is a more animalistic behavior uh that is more reactionary while being empathetic requires reflection and acknowledgement.
I think that could be true. That seems that strikes me as being true that um empathy is the sort of thing that our cognitive biases especially like the deepest ingrained ones like our heruristics skew heavily heavily towards self-interest.
that it's only upon rational reflection or not only but it's it's like basically upon like rational reflection and like adjusting your values that you're able to make those split-second decisions.
Although I do think that depending on what you value, you probably could make a split-second decision. Like I think a parent make can easily make a split-second decision to kill them like to let themselves die so they may survive or the kids may survive.
Prod Polaraxis, thanks so much for the chat. Hi Ian, I don't know if you play chess. I feel like you're a good chess player. I might probably below average in terms like chess players, right? Like obviously I'd crush somebody who's never played chess before.
Grammy, thanks so much for the super chat. Um, many religions promote avoiding accountability by forgiveness through belief or repentance to God. Yeah. Which is like crazy, right? Um, there's there's this great paper on justice that I read. It it had the quote that I read earlier, but it made this great point, which is that one of the requirements of justice is that the judge needs to be different from the victim. You know, it's the victim's job to forgive you and that and the judge it's the judge's job to make sure that you get what you deserve.
The I'm sorry to clarify, the victim can forgive you if they want to forgive you.
Depends on the circumstances. Um, but then it's like the judge's job to give you your punishment or, you know, let you off the hook if in fact you don't deserve one. Um, and these roles kind of just need to be separate. They shouldn't be the same because otherwise you're going to be I don't know like you can't forgive someone because you want to forgive them but then punish them because they deserve punishment.
There might be reasons to forgive someone.
Um, and there might be reasons to punish someone and these things I don't know like they just creates conflicts, you know.
Anyway, what else do we have? Do we have anything else? Um, we're doing a a reading group. Um, it's Rosland Hurstous's on virtue ethics. Um, it's going to be July 25th at 8 PM. It's the fourth chapter about virtuous motivation. We're doing a Mecca Chameleon game night in the Discord.
discord.gg/allegedly Ian. Uh, come join. It's going to be fun.
Um, and additionally, uh, I'm dropping a new video right now. Check that video out. Um, it's titled Christian shockingly agrees that God is a sick [ __ ] God gives us unconditional love unless we give him a reason not to.
>> No, not God. God is always going to give us unconditional love.
>> Does God love Hitler?
>> Unconditional love.
>> Huh?
>> Does God love Hitler?
>> Yeah, he loves him.
>> Wow. What a sick [ __ ] Hell >> no.
>> Two times.
Are you there?
Yeah, go check it out. Go give it a big old like. Go double tap on it. Go do all that stuff.
Um, it's going to be fun.
Uh, anyway, I'm heading on out.
I'm leaving. You can't stop me.
Related Videos
0:33
Philosophy
Open Tab is a new interview series hosted by Substack co-founder Hamish McKenzie
Hypeflicksss
1K views•2026-05-21
27:53
Philosophy
Street Epistemology: Maritza (1) | Student Demands the Truth (Valuation)
magnabosco210
124K views•2019-06-27
1:18
Philosophy
Nel Noddings | Feminist philosophy and education | Whiteboard Video
studioninety9110
3K views•2019-10-13
18:20
Philosophy
LEGAL METHOD CLASS: Law, Order, Justice & Freedom | Understanding the Concept of Law in Society
LAW-MADE-SIMPLE.c
371 views•2025-11-22
1:26:44
Philosophy
Does evolution DEBUNK morality?
MajestyofReason
7K views•2025-03-06
47:07
Philosophy
How the Gospels Pass the Historical Test | Tim and Lydia McGrew
TheAaronRennShow
713 views•2025-12-02
1:03:26
Philosophy
Pluriversal Design SIG Book Club 13: bell hooks' Theory as Liberatory Practice
pluriversaldesignsig2851
777 views•2022-05-24
1:37:10
Philosophy
NICK LAND MEETS THEORY UNDERGROUND (w/ Michael Downs and David McKerracher)
PhilosophyPortal
9K views•2023-10-23
Trending
13:38
Law
WOW! Judge TURNS THE TABLES on Trump in His OWN $10B LAWSUIT!!!
MeidasTouch
197K views•2026-07-23
13:25
Business
Playstation NO DISC/NO BUY Fight Is Over...
DavidJaffeGames
4K views•2026-07-23
22:40
Business
Steam and Xbox Just Dropped The Hammer On PlayStation
OhNoItsAlexx
9K views•2026-07-23
16:52
Anthropology
Americans Confused in Australia for 17 Minutes Straight
IWrocker
17K views•2026-07-23