The video offers a rigorous look at the logical friction between causality and time, exposing the fragile metaphysical assumptions that both sides rely on. It is a sharp reminder that high-level debate often reveals more about the limits of human language than the nature of the universe.
拡張機能をインストールして、あらゆる動画内を即座に検索しましょう
Can YOU Convert this Atheist?追加:
And we're live.
What an evening it is.
Some would say that this is a late broadcast. Some would say this is an early broadcast.
Who's to say?
I know that.
>> Well, hello. You got here quickly. Real quick, can I get your name, age, and pronouns?
>> Yeah. My name is Jacob. I'm 20 years old. Uh, he, him, and I'm a Christian.
>> All right. So, welcome in, Jacob. We are right at the start of our stream here. So, you think you can convert this atheist?
>> Um, no. Ultimately, God is the one who brings people to the knowledge of the truth. But I can show you like my own anecdotal experience and the evidence that convinced me as to why God um was real. Like I was previously an atheist for 14 years.
>> And um >> um I I just want to say anecdotal experience is going to do nothing for me because I've heard anecdotal experience from people of various religions. So if you're trying to convince me of the Christian God, anecdotal experience is not what's going to do it.
>> Sure. in that I was um talking like meaning um my conversion personally and and the things.
>> Yeah, that's what anecdotal would mean.
Yes.
>> So, no like but as in the um evangelical apologetic things that convince me in that sense, you know.
>> Well, evidence would be different from like your personal testimony. Um if you have evidence, sure, I'd love to hear it.
>> Yeah. So, I'd say like one would be the cosmological argument. Um >> the colam or >> there's many different ones but like how the idea that science shows that everything in being must have a cause.
We look to um the structure of how our universe came about. It had a beginning from the big bang.
>> No.
>> Therefore a cycl cyclical argument um saying that the big bang was a big bang wouldn't >> be valid. So >> the big bang is not an absolute beginning. Jacob.
>> Yeah. So you can say this, but the the thing that this rebutes is the idea that it's illogical to hold the position that there is a god. This elevates that position to an equal standing with the alternative view that would be like the universe existing forever or all these other different explanations.
>> Yeah. I feel like you didn't really listen when I said that the big bang doesn't mean that there was an absolute start to the universe.
>> No. Yeah, I know what you mean because you can say that's part of a cycle, right?
>> Uh well, I would just say that the big bang is the beginning of like the current state of our universe, the the beginning of the observable state of our universe. Um majority of physicists agree it it doesn't mean that there was like an absolute beginning to time. In fact, I would say the idea that time began to exist um would be contradictory.
>> How so?
uh because you would have to have a changeless state for there to be no time. Uh a changeless state could not then change into a changing state.
>> What if it's like a separate category though?
>> What do you mean by separate category?
>> So you're speaking in terms of like time being created in time. It seems like >> I'm talking about time beginning. So for there to be a state before time. So time would be a sequence of events. that wouldn't apply state.
>> It would be defined by change. So it would have to be an unchanging state.
So somehow an a state that does not change changes into a changing state.
>> I think you're more touching on can God create something outside of himself?
>> No, that's not I'm not I didn't include God in that whatsoever. that kind of connects because if time if God was the this is why we was the causal the um uh what's the word uh I don't know um the causal the cause for the big bang then therefore he created time because the assumption in that is that time started at the big bang and from that from saying that uh no time current happens is a contradiction you'd be saying um the uncaused state so therefore god Right.
>> Uh yeah, that's not what I'm Well, what what I was saying was that time necessarily must have always existed because there could not be a timeless state that became a state with time.
>> Why not?
>> I've I've already said, but I'll say again because for there to be a timeless state, it would have to be a state without any change. Um because without time nothing could change. There could be no sequence of events. Um so somehow this unchanging state would have to change into a changing state. That is what's contradictory.
>> An unchanging state literally a state without change because if there was any change in existence then that necessitates the existence of time.
But from like from my understanding, you're taking the the elements of time with like a change on a timeline and saying that it had to be a cause in the same kind of like way um from that cause happens in our understanding of how time plays out. What if it was caused um in the um situation where there is uncausality outside of any sort of um linear chronology.
>> Uh Jacob, I don't think that addressed the heart of my problem.
>> So what I'm saying is you're you're applying it.
>> Sorry, just let's let's say it this way.
Do would you agree that time is like a sequence of events?
Yeah.
>> So for there to be a sequence of events that would that would have to mean that there is some form of change. Something that once was in one state is now in a different state. That's it must progress from one state to another. Is that correct?
>> Yeah.
>> So for there to be a state without time would mean that there must be a state where there was no change and where there were no sequences of events.
Mhm.
>> So if there is a state without change and no sequences of events, how would then time come to exist? Which would mean firstly that that state without change changed into a state with change.
Um but also when there can be no sequence of events and there was before no time and now there is time that would be a sequence of events. So that would mean that there is a timeless state that participates in time which cannot happen.
>> I think that that touches on infinite regression, right?
>> No.
>> Is it not?
>> No.
>> Well, it the idea that the universe came from an infinite chain of events to the current point. So the infinite change of cycle of like freeze big freeze or whatever and then um that actually leads to where the present moment is never reached. But with God it provides a necessary explanation that rebutts the idea that there has to be some sort of process of change before. So, Jacob, the whole infinite regress thing, it doesn't really if you establish an arbitrary starting point, you can you can have an infinite regress. If you have a number line, it can continue each way in infinite directions and you establish an arbitrary starting point at zero. Um, so if we decide, hey, like for example, we we know that the earth is like billions of years old. uh we have a timeline where we have like before the common era and in the common era that's pretty arbitrarily established. Um it doesn't actually reflect like how long the earth itself has existed or even how long humans have occupied it. We have established an arbitrary starting point for which we want to measure our existence. Um we could do the exact same thing with the universe.
It's not arbitrary though because we know that the big bang at least for I don't know what what you mean about time um not being understood as like starting at that point because you're just kind of assuming there that that science reaches to a definite deductive conclusion that that is the case but time and space started at the big bang.
So it's not arbitrary is it? We don't know that time and space started at the big bang.
>> But to the science science current understanding, that's all we can deductively.
>> Our our breakdown our the our math begins to break down when we try to look at a point prior to the big bang. But again, um the majority of physicists would disagree that the big bang was an absolute start to time or to the universe. Um, but >> they disagree. Isn't that more down to their personal contentions rather than the conclusions that are made solely from their research?
>> Uh, when it's when it's nearly 70%, I would say it's going to be based off of the data, not based off of just like how they feel that day. Um, >> but how can you say that though?
Correlation isn't causation.
>> What do you think that means in this context? That correlation isn't causation.
Because the measurement of science only reaches far back enough to make the conclusion that >> yeah so what do you when you say correlation does not mean causation what does that mean in this context? So you are referring to the high majority of the officials in this um area of science that have some opinion >> against the idea that um there was like at start the big bang but I'm saying >> researchers the majority of those actual research >> yeah so the majority of those who do that research would disagree that the big bang was an absolute start to to time. So, Jacob, why would I listen to you who has done no research on it thinking that there is a beginning to time because of the Big Bang?
>> But you'd agree that those contentions they have personally derived from something that's separate to the deductive conclusions that could be brought out from their astrophysics research itself. Uh, I would say it's based off of their research and the evidence that they've gathered and their expertise in the field. I have no reasoned >> their assumptions. Again, it's based off of the evidence.
>> They're not deductive though.
>> But also, didn't you say earlier you were like, "Oh, scientists agree to this." Like, you were wrong. But like it's earlier you were trying to appeal to scientists, but now suddenly when science doesn't agree with what you think, oh, it's just their personal opinion, not based off of their research whatsoever. Why would a scientist draw a personal conclusion that completely conflicts with the evidence of their research?
>> It doesn't conflict um at the point of um making the decision about like what happened before after the big bang, but the big bang up to that point we have the measurement. So to then make an inference from that would be within that scientific logical um uh that's why I'm using it uh as substantiation for my point of view and that's separate to what what you're saying >> Jacob. So again um nearly 70% of physicists when pledged that the big bang does not mean there was an absolute beginning to time. um you stated that it did as if that were a like an agreed upon conclusion and that's just not the case. Um again, you haven't really contended with my problem about time beginning and why that would be contradictory. You tried to bring it back to infinite regress which was almost the opposite of what I was talking about. Um because I was talking about like how time necessarily must have always existed and you were trying to say the opposite of like oh time couldn't have um always existed. Um so I I don't know Jacob I'm not super convinced to convert just yet.
>> Yeah. So I'd agree with you there. So when scientists have this opinion um I'm not saying that the opinion they've come up come to um conflicts with the evidence. uh but neither am I saying that the the belief that I believe in couldn't with the evidence either. So what I was saying from the start is that the cosmological argument in in relation to this brought me from the position thinking that it's illogical to believe there's a god to that is reasonable to come to the conclusion that there is a god and I would like you to provide me with any sort of evidence that contradicts what I'm saying and that what I believe is illogical.
>> Uh yeah so well you're you're trying to use the colum cosmological argument. um which if you're if we break down the premises, it's that everything that begins to exist must have a cause. Uh the second premise is that the universe began to exist and the conclusion is therefore the universe must have a cause. Uh and then some will draw it out further to say that the the cause must have the specific characteristics. But here the problem is I disagree with the second premise. I disagree with the idea that the universe began to exist. I hold to an eternal universe. So like I said, I hold that time must necessarily have always existed. If time necessarily must have always existed, then I can hold to an eternal universe as well.
>> But the point I was making was can you rebuke um the fact that the idea that my belief held is illogical? In other words, that like it's um it's necessarily false.
that it is necessarily false.
>> Yeah.
>> Well, I would reject the second premise of the second premise is not true, then the conclusion does not follow.
>> But you're rejecting it out of >> I showed you a logical contradiction. It must necessarily be false because time could not have begun to exist.
Time must have always existed.
Therefore, it could not have begun. So, that shows a contradiction in the second premise of your argument.
>> Okay. So, you're going to something else.
Um that that's not the cosmology club you're going to Right. Um yeah, but I would say >> what? Jacob, are you talking to someone else too? What conversation are you having?
>> Okay. Right. So I'm not I'm not being eloquent enough here. Um but I would disagree. I don't think for time needs to um have a a change for time to exist. I think that there does there can be a state where there's an unchangingness. In other words, God is unchanging and infinite and he can then create time where there is like a process of change.
>> So you think God could have existed in a timeless state?
>> Yeah, he's like time and space.
>> Is it possible to take any sort of action in a timeless state?
So then again, you're going back to >> I'm just I'm just asking about like def definitionally in time. If if one is in a timeless state, is it possible to take any sort of action?
>> No, I'd say it's it's not mutually exclusive to create time for time to come about as a result of God >> prior to creating time in a timeless state. Prior to creating time, would it be possible to take any action?
>> Okay, listen. I'm uh so I'm answering it if I can just like get out. So, it's not not mutually exclusive >> for God to exist, right? And to be an unchanged state and to create time and also um to not um like change and cause things within his um like essence of being infinite and unchanging. if you know what I mean. So, no, I I disagree with you. So, God doesn't um like change or >> Great. Uh thank you for not answering my question. I'll ask it one more time so you can get it this time. So, is it possible in a state without time to take any action?
>> It's not possible. No.
>> No. So, could God do anything in a state without time?
Like I said, it's not mutually exclusive because you're bringing in the elements of time and creating. I know it makes no sense, right?
>> Prior to time, could he do anything?
>> But that question in itself is a presupposition that God was prior to time in quotation marks.
>> You said he created it time.
He created it in the sense of like time terminology, but I would say re he created time and space outside of >> Yeah, Jacob, here's the problem. You're showing why that second premise of the column is contradictory because for him to have created time, that puts a timeless state into a timeline, which is contradictory. So God could not have taken any action prior to there being time. Because in order to take an action, you must be in a state with time for there to be a sequence of events in which you are taking that action.
>> But you're presupposing that would still be the case in a reality where there is no time. While while in time that would be the case, but we're in reality outside.
>> You just said that in a state with no time, no action could be taken. You just agreed with that >> in the sense of time.
You cannot have the sense of time in a timeless state, Jacob.
>> Exactly.
>> Okay. Well, you're doing a really great job of arguing against yourself, Jacob.
I appreciate that. That makes my job really easy.
>> Okay. What would you say about Jesus's resurrection?
>> Uh, it didn't happen.
I I appreciate the pivot, but didn't happen.
>> Okay. But if it didn't happen, who would die for something that they claim to have seen and thus die for a lie if you're saying that it didn't happen?
>> Can you show me the historical evidence of people like dying?
>> Assuming that the eyewitnesses >> Yeah, assuming that the historical evidence is credible. Let's do that just for the sake of argument.
>> Can you show it to me?
>> Well, >> why would I assume why would I assume the evidence is credible without being presented with it?
>> No, just for the sake of argument. I I like >> that's not how argument works. You can't say just assume that I have a bunch of evidence that says I'm right. What do you mean?
>> No, but it's about So, we can go to the historical argument, but this is a separate argument and like that we can engage with that, right?
>> No. Well, my argument is there's not sufficient historical evidence to even believe that all the people who supposedly died for seeing the resurrection of Jesus actually did.
>> Okay. Well, most um even atheist historians h have a consensus that Jesus lived and was crucified on the cross contrary to what Islam teaches that it was replaced.
>> Okay. Yeah. You said to that point, >> right? Sure. So, there was there was potentially a person who lived and was executed. What does that prove about the people who supposedly saw that resurrection? Um like that they got executed.
So we have the external exobiba biblical accounts archaeological >> of of who?
>> Well, we have the sharing. We have archaeological um >> Why do you laugh?
>> I'm so sorry. It's just this road of turn is like one of the biggest [ __ ] pieces of of fake evidence.
>> Are you talking about the 1980 carbon dating um study?
>> Uh I'm talking about more than that. But I'm talking about the 3D models that showed that the the impression on the cloth didn't make sense for the actual 3D contours of a human face and would have made more sense on an almost completely flat surface. I'm talking about the fact that the methods used to weave the cloth wouldn't have existed yet um during the time in which Jesus was supposedly crucified. I'm talking about the fact that the Bible specifically says that there were two cloths wrapped around Jesus, not just one.
>> Yeah. So you have the face cloth and that was actually found separately um in another instance and the Bible holds to that and the shroud it doesn't say anything about the shroud. Um the the uh fibers in the cloth the very very micro surface of it were scarred with an image. You can't do there's no pigment on it. Um and uh researchers have hypothesized that it would have to have been resulted by um a voltage that exceeds any sort of um ability that people would have even been able to do done in the 1300s. But then again, we found pollen in the shroud that dates back to first century. So I don't know what what you say about that because >> there's not been pollen from the first century. So the the shroud the shroud first came onto the scene in the 1300s and even in the 1300s it was stated to be a forgery. Um we have been able to recreate the impression on the shroud of Turin. Um the weaving was a herring bone pattern that that wasn't around in the first century CE. Uh can you give me the the study that showed that there was pollen from the first century?
>> Sure.
It's got my Oh, well, Jacob, I don't know if you meant to do that or not, but I'm going to call this a mercy and I'm going to move on to the next guest.
Oh. Oh, they all rescended their invitations. So, uh hello everybody.
How are we doing? Um it is a wonderful Saturday night. Uh, I went to Renfair today. Uh, I got an adorable little thing that I want to show you guys. His name is Marshall. Uh, look at this cutie.
They were sewing the plushies at the stand.
So, these are like really handmade. Um, I just thought that he was like one of the cutest [ __ ] things I've ever seen. So, this is Marshall. Uh, and he's going to be sitting in on stream. Uh, he will not be able to read chat where he's going to be sitting, but he will be able to feel your energy. Um, I just think he's so cute and he's so very soft. Uh, so I wanted to show you guys what I got. It was a wonderful day.
Is Marshall an atheist? Of course.
freezing him right >> there.
Welcome in.
>> Uh you are a child.
>> Uh wait >> that I'm sorry. There was three children in your profile picture and your voice sounded very young.
Uh Jacob, I'm sorry.
I'm I'm going to have mercy on you and not let you back up.
>> Hello, Bobby.
>> Hello.
>> Been a while since you've been on my stream. How's it going? You you going to try to convert me tonight?
>> Oh, you remember me? Um, no.
>> You keep bothering my chat. Of course I do.
>> My bad. and I I only come for genuine conversation.
So, have you looked at the reasons of why some atheists convert to the faith?
>> Yeah.
>> And I don't find them convincing.
>> So, what would you say that most likely they say on why they convert? a vast majority is a personal experience. They feel that they had some sort of moment where they they felt the presence of God. Um, and it just so happens that a lot of those people are in particularly vulnerable emotional states. Like it's extremely common to hear that they were at their lowest point or that they had some sort of like substance addiction or, you know, that there they had like family or personal problems. Um, that's that's the majority of stories that I hear.
Yeah, but I mean pretty much like uh atheists go off of stat or facts, right? Like is that not accurate?
>> Uh atheism is not a monolith. It's just lacking a belief in God.
>> Yeah. Due to the lack of evidence that they >> Not necessarily.
>> So would you say that >> lacking of belief?
>> Okay. So would you say there is a lack of evidence for the existence of God?
>> I mean I personally would but to say that that is like a viewpoint of atheism is just not correct.
>> Okay. Well I mean I hear on your I can't say all of atheists viewpoints but a good majority hold to facts as their evidence.
>> Okay?
meaning so facts don't deal with absolutes though you can use that I guess I mean you can use scientific theory and you know like scientical facts or whatever you know however you want to use word play um but ultimately I mean it has to come down to a foundational truth and what can we make sense of within that foundational truth Oh, this world.
>> Bobby, this conversation right now is making me think that I should maybe have guests do a breathalyzer before they come up on my stream.
>> So, yeah. Okay. So, I I'll clarify a little better. So I can say like I can pick something that I know is not true or that I know 100% isn't true and label it as facts just because I feel it's a fact. Right.
>> Okay. You sure you can? That doesn't make it accurate. But typically if people are presenting something to you as fact, they have evidence to back it up.
>> Exactly. So, but but really there is no evidence behind the atheist viewpoint because there's no moral foundation.
There's no origin foundation.
>> Atheism is not a belief system.
>> It's pretty much denying the existence of a creator.
>> No, it's lacking a belief in a creator.
It's very different.
>> No. Yeah. So, this is pretty much like the stance that tea women use to be able to call themselves a woman.
>> The [ __ ] is up with the random transphobia, Bobby? We're talking about the Bible.
>> It's not transphobia. But again, it goes back to foundational truth.
Like, we can we can use word play all day, but not be accurate in it.
Just like you stated, a fact can we can call something a fact all day, but if it's not accurate, that that disproves us calling it a fact.
>> So you deplete your own argument. So >> you're using so many words to say literally nothing.
>> Yeah. Um H >> Bobby, I have people in request um asking if I could put up a split screen of paint drying. That's how interesting you're being.
>> Well, yeah. So, the topic shouldn't be how interesting, but how genuine and accurate the conversation is.
>> Well, I'm proud to say you've accomplished none.
Well, I mean, really, you're not I mean, I know you guys feel like we should have to convert you guys or convince you of a God, but that we're not told that as believers. We don't see.
>> Okay.
>> All right.
Welcome in.
>> Hi. Do you mind giving me a second?
>> Uh, sure. Just if I can get your name, age, and pronouns when you're ready.
>> Yeah, sure. I'll just tell you before I have to go for a sec, but it's Oreo. Um, O R I E L. Last name. Uh, you probably don't need your last name, but Oreo. Um, he him.
>> Wait, sorry. Orel or was that an O at the end or an L?
>> An L. An L.
>> Okay. I was like Oreo but with an extra letter.
>> Um and then I'm 19. Um but give me one second.
>> Okay.
What a lively stream this evening, isn't it? Huh? All these guests.
There are more documented eyewitnesses to the Alabama leprechaun than to Jesus's resurrection.
Who else seen the leprechaun say? Yeah.
Ah, some people.
Let's see. Do I have a pen here? I do have a pen here. I will draw the leprechaun to from memory the way that I remember it being on the the [ __ ] news broadcast. Um, what do I have to draw on?
>> All right, I'm gone.
>> Okay, one second. I'm drawing a leprechaun.
>> Uh, so what religion are you, Oriel?
>> Yeah, I'm Judaism.
>> All right, so you going to convert me?
>> Uh, my goal is to get you to believe in the Jewish God. Yeah. Yeah.
>> Okay. Well, go ahead.
>> Okay. Um so what I would say is that we believe in Judaism and we accept Judaism because we can prove the national revelation took place at Sinai um to tens of thousands of reliable transmitters that have transmitted the information until now um and therefore we accept it.
Um I think we've talked before. Have we talked before?
>> I don't think so.
>> Okay. Okay, cuz I've heard this argument before and it made no sense cuz it's like, okay, so because of a bunch of people believe something happened, therefore it must be true.
>> Well, that's not the argument. I can give you the argument if you if you want.
>> Yeah, just give me the argument why she think that it's true.
>> Right. Okay. So tens of thousands of sages attest today to receiving the Msora, which is the transmission of the um written Torah and the revelation that took place at Sinai, the events that took place from the previous generation, recounting the numbers of the previous generation in the tens of thousands, verifying them through observation to the righteous, pious and intellectual, and also receiving from these tens of thousands before them. that this process of generational transmission has always been in the tens of thousands since si for this >> you have definitely been here before um I finish the claim or >> yeah well it's just you're you're saying things that you've already said it just doesn't it doesn't track that like because a bunch of people genuinely believe something uh that therefore it it must be true like yeah I feel like you do this argument a lot um >> it's because of testimony has an improbability of fabrication or falling into error and it's transmission.
>> Okay. So, what about all the people of other religions that would attest they've genuinely received the the word of God uh or the people like there there's so many different religions who would who would claim to have heard from their god, >> right? So, no other religion has this.
Um what they have, for example, is independent um testimony about their personal experiences. Um but even the start of like the major religions, right? For example, we can look at Islam, right? It starts with the testimony of one individual, right?
About the Quran um in regards to Christianity, right? The um Christian doctrine um begins through the 12 apostles and Paul, right? There is no national revelation. These other religions, right, where they can trace reliable transmitters back into that point. Um right, however, there is in Judaism. You have a national revelation of tens of thousands of reliable transmitters that um both have the epistemic criteria of observed very high intelligence and righteousness. Right?
>> How do you measure righteousness?
>> Right? So you would just attest in the same way for example that um you as a I'm going to assume for example that you trust your mother. Am I wrong or can I assume that?
>> Sure.
>> Okay. Sure. So you would probably trust your mother, right? because you observed her throughout your life to take care of you, right? To be somewhat of a good person, how she treats you. Um, and probably you would see that she has some form of intelligence, right? I'm not going to say like she's a genius, but let's say your mom is somewhat intelligent. So, if your mom, for example, told you um that she got into a car crash, you would trust her, right?
You can you would consider her reliable because you observe something.
>> Sure. But if my mom told me that she saw God, I would not trust her, >> right? If your mom told you that, why?
Because the claim is so drastic, right?
It's so um abnormal that you would probably say um either your mom made a mistake and what she saw, right? Or your mom um I use this example all the time with like a UFO, right? If you're if your your mom told you she saw a UFO and all the details, right? But if your mom came, for example, with tens of thousands of reliably known um let's say PhDs um that all attested in grave description to everything that took place, including the alien coming off of the ship and all the description of what took place, you would have to affirm the testimony because it's so strong because the transmitters are so reliable and the amount of them makes it improbable for error or fabrication.
Right. So obviously I agree with you.
It's one person. Yeah. But if it's tens of thousands, for example, um Harvard students in a certain category, you would affirm their testimony.
Um so yeah, >> if it was just testimony, no.
>> So you wouldn't affirm tens of thousands of, let's say, PhDs um all attesting to observing a certain phenomena in grave detail. You wouldn't affirm that?
>> No. If it was just testimony, they had no other evidence other than testimony.
No.
>> Right. So at that point, um, you fall into a complete state of unverifiability. Um, and I'll explain why. First of all, everything you get is basically >> again, evidence is what I'm asking for.
>> Right? So testimonial evidence is evidence. And I'll explain how if you take this position, you've made an irrational assumption. Number one, an improbable assumption, but now you can't trust anyone. Why? because it's much more likely for example your doctor who you trust to give you medication um made a mistake in the production of the medication that will lead to you dying um or intentionally poison the medication that can lead to you dying then tens of thousands can I finish then tens of thousands >> wrong I'm going to correct you if you say something wrong >> first of all doctors don't make medications pharmaceutical companies make medications and they have so many layers of test that that medication has to undergo then even At like a retail pharmacy level, there's tons of safety checks that are they're restricted by like governmental regulations uh where you have to match like the picture of the medication. Um where there has to be like measurements of the amount of dosages, sometimes even in like time release safes so that they can't be given the incorrect medication. Uh the bottles have to be scanned out multiple times to verify that they are going to the correct person. Um there's tons and tons and tons of layers of protections uh to prevent someone from getting some sort of tainted medication. Um >> that wasn't my point. The point is when a doctor provides you the medication, right? It is much more likely that he could have taken that medication um that he received from the pharmacy and poisoned it.
>> No.
>> Um or so let me again let me finish the claim. Okay. Or made it work.
>> It's wrong.
>> So it's not wrong. So do you say and I'll explain why. I've worked in a pharmacy, Oriel. It is wrong.
>> Doctors >> doctors rarely give patients medications directly as well.
>> Uh even if you're talking about like in a hospital level, like maybe it would be administered by a nurse, but it's not going to be common for a a doctor to be the one administrating medication to someone. Um, and again, there's layers and layers of protection to avoid there being any sort of of tainting or any sort of mistake in the medication they're receiving.
>> So, you can even use this at the person at the counter of the pharmacy, right?
The person you receive it from, right?
Again, it's very likely and not even very likely, it's much more likely that he would make he would grab that medication and poison it than tens of thousands of reliable people with the epistemological criteria of immense intelligence and righteousness would collectively come to fabricate an event, right? How much more so one reliable transmitter makes up um or lies about something than tens of thousands.
>> What's the process of preparing a medication to sell in a retail pharmacy?
that this is irrelevant, right? Because >> No, it's very relevant because you're saying it's it's more likely for you have to know the likelihood of that thing happening to say that it's more or less likely than what you're talking about. Um, >> I'm saying in regards to the single person you receive it from, right? So, I'm not saying again in the entire process itself. Um, what I'm saying is that the person you receive, >> but there's safeguards within that, >> right? So again, how do you know the person at the counter who is going to the back of the shop to get you that medication is not secretly poison?
>> Have you ever been in a pharmacy?
>> Yes, I'm asking you. How do you know?
>> How do you know? Well, because once medications are bagged, they are barcoded. They are not put in the back of the pharmacy. They are always put in view. They have cameras on them at all times. you have to scan the correct NDC out as well as the barcode for the patient itself. Um, like what what do you mean? And and when you say poisoning, what sort of poison would they put in there? Because there's so many checks along the way of making the medication that >> like you can't alter it once it's been sealed.
>> How do you know it's not very possible that the guy or probable the guy can just go take it, go to the back, go anywhere, and then poison it? Like how do you know based on what?
>> Because of all the safeguards that I just told you, >> right? And because you observe the person to have a certain level of reliability, right?
>> No, it's more because I know the standards in a pharmacy.
>> It's not because he's it's not because the person's reliable. That's not why.
>> Not necessarily. It is because I know they are held to a certain set of standards within their job that they must keep in order to keep their job. So pharmacist pharmacists have to scan the NDC of the medication.
And if they're using a stock bottle, the seal must remain intact on the stock bottle. Um, if they are using from like a larger bottle or if it's like a generic, so it has like a large quantity in the stock bottle. Uh, >> so again, the analogy, the analogy can apply to anything, right? Again, if you want to get more descriptive, I can even say like for example, a doctor giving someone a shot, right? Or um, for example, um, for health reasons. It can be really anything. The point is is that when you trust a certain individual um whether it's like a doctor or a nurse or anyone right you trust them because they have a certain level of criteria right the guy has a degree in the field so you know he's in in that area um and he also you observe him to take care of patients to be successful right no one's going to go to a doctor that is known in the community um that when dealing with their patients they get very sick or they die right they're going to look at the doctor's reputation and they're going to see this guy has a good reputation he's known for taking care of people. We have observed this. I observe taking care of me.
>> Oriel, there's another problem here.
Doctors are not usually the ones to administer injections.
>> Again, it could be a nurse. It doesn't matter, right? The point is that anyone you observe has a certain criteria of a reliability where you will affirm and be okay with what they do. You will trust them um based on what you observed.
>> But they're not infallible, which is why we have medical malpractice lawsuits, >> right? So, I never said they were infallible. Just like I'm saying that my transmitters I never said they're infallible. I'm going by the improbability um of the claim being fabricated or error, right? So I would never say it they're infallible, but we don't go by like I'm not arguing infallibility, right? So in the same way that you would trust a nurse um or a doctor to do certain things that could be medically harmful because you observe them to have a specific criteria. In the same way we deal with the sages and it's much more likely the nurse um made a mistake in the injection um and ended up it could end up in your death.
>> Hey Joel, has this guy been on yours before? I feel like I've seen him.
>> Yeah, I recognize the argument. I just I feel like it was a different account, Rabbi. Was it the same account that you yelled at me on?
>> LV just muted it. Oh yeah.
>> So earlier like I mean am I live? Do you remember?
>> Yeah, I never yelled at you. You just kind of muted me. But yeah, >> I don't mute you. I don't mute.
>> Who are the sages?
>> Right. So, you're basically asking how we know they exist. Correct.
>> Yeah.
>> Right. So, we know every orthodox Jew um prescribes to the Mishna Torah um of the Rambam. Right. Um and also Sedra Hador and Sedor Hador affirms this claim. So we know that every Orthodox Jew affirms this. Um so we can we can know that tens of thousands of the sages affirm this because to be an Orthodox Jew, you have to affirm the Torah.
>> So when you say tens of thousands, it's like over hundreds of years or something.
>> No, it's tens of thousands every generation back until that point.
>> But and then ultimately that saw what what are they uh like um what's the word? transmitting, >> right? The events that took place. So, for example, when you talk about the sign of revelation, um how God spoke to them. Um for example, the the mountain hovering over their head, all the other miracles that took place. Um again, I can go >> mountain hovering over their head.
What's that?
>> That sounds cool.
>> This is in the Torah.
>> Um so, yeah. So, what's the point?
>> Look, I'm curious about that story.
Like, that's >> that's like the only interesting thing you said so far, Oreo. Right. I'm not going to I'm not going to like like you have to address my argument, right? I'm not here to just like tell you everything that happened in the Torah.
>> Do you mean the big storm on Mount Si in Exodus 19 >> and the mountain hovering over their head?
>> Where is that in the Torah? Because I read the Torah and I did not read that part.
>> Right. So, it's in the oral Torah. Torah Shabba, right? Which is part of the transmission.
>> Um, so what is your uh what's your contention? I guess like it's impossible to know that that was transmitted previously, right? Because you could just have like some rabbi now saying that like, oh yeah, this uh flying mountain thing has been around forever, but it could have just been this generation. How do we know that it uh is prior to this generation if it's just oral, >> right? Because if you're going to say that, for example, it wasn't tens of thousands, let's say back three generations ago, one generations ago, um it entails tens of thousands of sages in one of these generations, either a misverified the number of sages or b misverified the fact that they were sages, which are both irrational assumptions and improbable.
>> I I think it's more like, okay, so a bunch of people genuinely believe something, so therefore we must believe that that thing is true. Is that what you're saying? cuz you at first made it seem like they all received this at the exact same moment like they all witness something together.
>> Um not convincing but is interesting but to say that it happens generationally not all at one point in time just all these various people affirm that they believe that this thing occurred.
>> I I never said the revelation happens every generation. It's the transmission of it.
>> Right.
>> Right. So, so again, um the reason >> so people are told something and they believe it.
>> It's not that simple, right? The reason why we can affirm it to be true is because number one, the reliability of these transmitters, their epistemic criteria of having an observed level of righteousness and intelligence um and also the number of these sages. Because of this, it entails an improbability of fabricating um the event or falling into error transmission. So wouldn't pastors in Christianity also meet that exact same criteria?
>> No. Because for example, all Christians will attest, including pastors, right, to receiving the revelation of the New Testament from the 12 apostles and Paul, right, which are 13 people. Um, this is not a national revelation, right? Um, nor is it >> tens of thousands of pastors who would affirm it.
>> That's not my argument, right? My argument isn't because for example u millions of orthodox Jews say this therefore it's true right that would be circular and also then any religion could just come and say that right Islam could say we have billions of Muslims that affirm the Quran therefore it's true that's not my argument right my argument is the testimony they are making has an improbability of fabrication or falling into error on who they're receiving it from okay so I can I don't think I can put into >> that is the same thing oral >> no it's not the same thing it >> it's not right One one of thousands.
>> It very much is not right. One is tens of thousands.
>> Really similar. I think the numbers are different because if you just go like apostolic succession, they're it's going to be less than 10,000 >> much less. If you go by eventually it becomes like all the pastors and they are all affirming this thing, but they're all >> they all affirm they all affirm to receive it from the 12 apostles and Paul, right? where we're affirming to receive it from based on the transmission is tens of thousands at a national level.
>> So it's like a fallacy of like it's an adopulum fallacy that you're doing then.
>> No, an ad popular fallacy would be for example all these thousands of people say this is true therefore it's true.
That's not my >> saying you're saying you're saying our side more people said it was true so it's true. That's literally what you just said.
>> No that's not that's not my claim. Um for example in Christianity there's no national revelation. Right. Number one they're um attesting to receiving it from 13 people. What? What do you mean?
What? Sorry. What do you mean by that?
>> Right. So, a nationally experienced event, right? So, for example, um in the Torah, right, we have tens of thousands standing before Sinai that all attest to receiving um the revelation, all the events that took place rather in Christianity, we have, for example, the apostolic tradition or even whatever branch of Christianity will all >> So, where's where's the evidence from all those people that witnessed the event?
>> Right. So the evidence is their testimony which has an improbability of fabrication. Yeah.
>> Okay. I those people who witnessed this event where's their testimony or evidence, >> right? The evidence is their claim which has an improbability of fabrication.
>> Evidence is their claim.
>> I think I think the improbility >> testimonial evidence.
>> So Rabbi, let me ask you this question.
>> Everything we get is by testimonial evidence.
>> Yeah. Let me ask you this really quick and this is just like a really honest question.
>> Yeah, sure.
>> Is there a chance and this is just like a crazy notion, but is there a chance that um people wrote down this story in the book that is now called the Torah and that that story became popular in a culture and then there was a bunch of people who perpetuated that story. But it did start in just one like sort of like some scriptures, >> right?
>> So, so if you're asking me is it possible? Um, yes, anything is possible, right? It's possible right now we're in a giant big brain. It's possible right now that really God does exist, that we're in three universes, like anything is possible, right? But we don't go by possibility. We go by probability and evidence, right? and a probability of tens of thousands of sages in one of these generations misverifying the number of sages.
>> Hold on. Hold on one second. Testimonial evidence is evidence.
>> You said the evidence is their claim.
>> No, >> that was that's a quote from you, >> right? The testimony. Do you know what a testimony is?
>> No, me don't know what testimony it's too many syllables. I can tell.
>> Um, so >> everything we get is by testimonial evidence unless it's true, right? Even even for example when we have expert testimony right um what we will have is people will um have a certain standard of reliability right you bring in a doctor to the courtroom they're going to attest on for example um what happened in the event and what they took place and based on their criteria based on their standard of reliability um for example their PhD um >> that's not how it works Oreo >> oh it is >> we don't get everything from testimony >> um >> yes we that would mean that there's no such thing as like empirical evidence. That would make no sense whatsoever. Um if if our only evidence like if we if our only evidence was testimony, uh then our only way to determine whether or not there is cancer would be whether or not a doctor just decided to say that we have cancer or not. What do you mean? We have ways to observe certain phenomena. We can test for cancer. Um we can do blood tests. We we can look for a tumor on scans. We don't just go off of the testimony of the physicians. We have empirical evidence to present to support claims that are made.
>> Right? So, I agree with you. Test um sorry, empirical evidence exists, right?
I'm not denying this. Um however, what I'm saying is that even when a doctor, right, um even will say that you have cancer, right? Or god forbid um someone is diagnosed with that, right? um they're attesting to observing a certain phenomena >> that you're going to want evidence >> again. Again, hold on one second. How you know what they're attesting to is true is by their standard of reliability, right?
>> No, it's by the evidence, oral.
>> Okay. So, hold on one second. Hold on a second. So, let me ask you that. Why do you go to, for example, a physician to be diagnosed about a case and not, for example, a crackhead on the street? Why?
Because because physicians have access to instruments that can make measurements to determine whether or not we have certain conditions.
>> Wait, it's not Wait, so if >> if doctors had no equipment, if if doctors had no equipment, hold on. If a cracker had the same equipment, would you trust them?
>> Uh, would they also have like certification to use that equipment?
>> Thank you. The certification gives them reliability.
>> Rabbi, Rabbi, >> like what?
>> We're talking these things are not like apples to apples.
>> We're trying to get around. You're trying to get around. We're talking about we're talking about like real educated people that are talking about real things that are verifiable, right?
So like the doctor the doctor can say, "Hey, you have cancer." And he can actually show you that with those instruments with technology and because like this guy's a scientist of some kind. You're saying that these these sages quote unquote which are really just like myth myth myth people, you know, the leaders of a cult. This is you making an assumption. So >> yeah, I'm assuming that they're leaders of a cult who can't verify a goddamn [ __ ] thing, right? They can't verify literally anything. All they're doing is perpetuating a cult by claiming something happened way back in the day the way the pastors and the imams do it.
And all it is is something that's written down in a book. It's it's not it's nothing like a doctor or any kind of scientist. They can actually show us evidence and real things beyond just their opinions. Right?
>> Evidence.
>> They can see these things to be true.
They can show us these things to be true.
>> Right. It's already explained this, right? The national testimony is sufficient evidence because it has an improbability of fabrication.
>> It doesn't. It doesn't. You keep saying that that's not true.
>> That's again >> that's not true. Prove that it's an improbability. You can't.
>> If you move me one more time, I'm not going to engage. Okay.
>> Okay. Good. Bye.
>> Disrespectful.
Okay.
>> As if you're going to leave. Give me >> smartest atheist. Smartest atheist.
>> He's going to appeal to authority now.
>> This is they >> I'll try one more time to see if I can speak.
>> Um so yeah, if you are going to say um that it's a cult, right? Um >> yes.
Joshua did that one. That's pretty good.
>> It was all or that it was all made up.
You are making an irrational assumption, right? Because you are saying that tens of thousands of reliable sages either ahead.
>> Let me again.
>> You're saying something that's not true.
>> But what is your >> why would they be why would they why would we consider them reliable? They said that a god did a big storm on a mountain and apparently made the mountain float, which isn't even in the book, but came down, had lunch with 70 elders, stood on a emerald stone, and and you're saying that these are reliable people, >> right? It's because of their epistemological criteria, right? So, because their epistemological criteria is being observed to have an extremely high level of intelligence um as well as righteousness, right? Right? We affirm their reliability. Right? So it's not just because 10,000 people are saying this. Right?
>> So righteousness is made up and I doubt they're very smart.
>> So if you are if you are going to say that they were not righteous, you are saying that tens of thousands of sages in one.
>> No, I I don't care about righteous.
That's just a category. Again, >> righteousness is nothing, Rabbi.
Righteousness is nothing. Don't use that word because it doesn't mean anything to people in the real world.
>> And you can't trust anyone in your life.
You made an irrational. Has anyone ever been like, "Oh, I I like my family doctor. He's so righteous." Unless they're like a surfer that are like >> righteous, dude.
That's all we mean. Not realist that real people use >> mean, right? We mean, for example, like if your doctor was known to lie a lot, right? This is just an example, right?
Make up things, make up diagnosises, right? You probably wouldn't trust him, right? Because then if he's known to have that reputation, what he's telling you, um, can very much likely be a lie, right? Right? But if a doctor has a reputation of of making accurate diagnosis, right? Um and telling the truth, then you're going to trust him because you've observed him to be a good person. Now, what I mean by good person is um trustworthy, right? So again, I'm not saying like righteous like like >> I don't know who you're talking about when it comes to these sages. And I don't know why I would believe that any of them are reliable or smart or anything that you're saying. This is all just like assertions with no evidence.
How do we know that the people who said they're righteous are righteous?
>> What like Robot Goat suggested, which I think is a great point, is that Catholicism has the like apostolic pestal or or pop papal uh succession of some kind, right? Those guys are all supposed to be reliable and honest and all that [ __ ] And they're claiming that the Holy Spirit is telling them that evolution is true now. And so, do you believe them, too? And then do you believe the the the Muslim version of that and the Orthodox version of that and then a bunch of random pastors in megaurches that are claiming the same thing? You know, their followers say they're reliable, too, Rabbi. So now now I now I can't trust when somebody claims that their cult leaders are reliable.
>> So we need more than just the testimony.
I'm sorry.
>> Okay. So can I respond or no?
>> Yep. I think so.
>> Okay. So, I'm just going to say if you beat me one more time, it's not going to engage. Okay.
>> A >> Okay. Have a good day. Smartest atheist.
Smartest atheist that can engage with a theist. How'd we go?
He said that like 20 mutes ago. The problem was he just kept trying to talk the entire time you were. I was there waring on the mute button with him the entire time you were talking.
>> He's not a very uh nice guy. No, he's not. Not very righteous, I'd say. Thank you for the little octopus on my head.
Paradox. Thank you.
>> Uh yeah, Joel, I saw people in chat saying that he had been on yours. And I I fel I thought I recognized him, but I didn't know if it was from mine or from when I was like, >> he's been on, you know, he's been on yours, too, right?
>> I I thought he had cuz I remembered that exact same argument.
>> Yeah. But remember coming up on your >> said he hadn't.
Oh, he's lying.
>> But he's so righteous.
>> I remember him being on yours and I was like, "Oh my goodness, I know what he's referencing because the the dubilarity actually says this is a this will be remembered as the thing that you know people will tell this story and this will be the thing that proves that this happened and it was like whatever miracles and whatever he's describing."
>> And I was just like, "Yeah, but that's just like in a book." So when he came up on mine, I I really wanted to like get into it and it ended up being like that pretty contentious. Yeah. It's just like this bold assertion with not no reason to believe it. But >> did you see what I got at Renfair today?
>> No.
Oh my goodness. What is it?
>> His name is Marshall.
He's a little dragon.
Is it from something or >> I No, he's just a little guy. They were they were making them in the booth.
These are like handsewn.
>> That's handmade onsite. Well, that's adorable.
>> Isn't it so cute? And I looked at him like his name is Marshall. I don't know why that's what came to mind.
>> It just jumped right out at you. It named itself.
>> Yes. Uh, and Joshua very correctly observed that if I pick up a stuffed animal and hold it for too long, I would feel sad if I put it down and walked away. So, I'm just inevitably going to get it.
And that is very true about me. Um, that's why I have so many >> big heart for stuffies >> and in general. That's why my life expectancy is like 40.
>> Oh, I'm so sorry.
Oh, there's a bug on my water cup. It was on the outside thankfully because I had it covered with a coaster, which this is a 16oz cup by the way, everyone.
>> Looks like a shot glass.
>> [ __ ] you.
>> Jeez.
>> And stay out, [ __ ] Yeah, that's fair.
Let's see if this person loads in.
It is It is a a good sized cup. All right.
All right. Welcome in, Reflect King. Uh, can I get your name, your age, and your pronouns?
>> Your pronoun?
>> Sure. Name is Oh, my name you said. Did you say my name?
>> Yes.
>> Oh, Reflect. And um my age is 41. And um I'm a he and a him.
>> Wonderful. Reflect. What's your religion or lack thereof?
Uh so I'm a theist. I believe that there is a god. God exists uh because of the impossibility of the contrary. The contrary is a contradiction. So I don't accept that they're uh that atheism is actually atheism is contradictory which I came to prove today.
>> Typically when people say impossibility of the contrary, they're about to run tag. Is that what you're about to do?
>> Nope. Nope.
>> Interesting. All right. I do have a super chat to read real quick though.
Boogie the cat says, "My cup is a normal size. It's just cold in there."
It is a normal. It holds 16 ounces. I measured it out. I uh so reflect the impossibility of the contrary. It's interesting because that's that seems to suggest um that there is only one like contradictory viewpoint to yours when in fact there would be an infinite possibility like an a possibly infinite number of contradictory worldviews to the one that you're about to present to me. So how can you disprove every single one of that possibly infinite number of worldviews?
>> Well, the contrary to theism is atheism.
So I would say what I am about to present is actually showcasing that atheism is contradictory and because it's contradictory it's not something that we should hold to unless we want to you know just be hypocritical and have cognitive dissonance that's you know an option too but um to conclude that God actually exists by way of the syllogism which is very simple um and hold the belief that God uh does not exist would be problematic. Before we get to that syllogism, is there a particular God that you believe in?
>> Uh the almighty God, an a god that's omnisient, a god that is um all knowing um a god that is um not uh not not restricted by whatever he created. So I believe that this god is a creating god.
So yeah.
>> Okay. So an all- knowing, all powerful.
Would you also say omnib benevolent? Are you going try omni?
>> No.
>> Okay. So not all good. For sure. Yeah. I don't think all good really makes sense anyway because you know if God is not restricted by what he created, he created moral frameworks. God is not a part of a moral framework. So he can't be good or bad. It's just like a category error. That's what I would say.
>> Wouldn't you also say that he would have had to create logic?
>> Would I say that he had to create logic?
Um I would say that he created everything. So if logic is a part of everything, then yeah. So he would not be bound by logic.
>> Well, God is not bound by time. Logic is all based upon time. Time is a major factor in contradiction so forth.
>> So God is not bound by logic.
>> Uh God is not bound by time. He's not bound by anything he created. And that would include >> So if God created logic >> and God is not bound by what he's created, then God is not bound by logic.
Um I'm not sure because I think the way that can be understood can have some negative connotations which I would not accept. Um so that's why I'm not uh quick to say >> reflect. You can't just say you can't say well that would make my argument look bad so I disagree. That's the conclusion of your argument. If you say that God created everything, God created logic and God is not bound by what he created then God would not be bound by logic. Well, if God can create things out of nothing, if he can say something will be and it is, um, is that logical?
No, it's not. It's not. You can't get something quote unquote from nothing, right? So, God created, he creates things, he instantiates things, he puts things into into motion. Um, he takes things out of existence. So, >> so it seems like we have a problem with your argument right there because you've contradicted yourself.
>> I haven't made the argument yet.
Yeah, but you've said contradictory things.
>> Yeah, but like I said, God is not bound by time. Because God is not bound by time, contradictions have to do with time. If time is out of the window, then anything can happen because somebody standing and sitting.
>> Wait, why do contradictions have to do Oh. Oh, cuz you're just saying like a contradiction would have to occur at the same time.
>> Exactly. Is that >> Is that what you're saying?
>> Yeah, it's live and slow.
>> Okay. So >> same time, same uh same state or same.
>> So God therefore is not a part of time or logic.
>> He's not restricted by, bound by or subject to time.
>> Okay. So God has never existed in reality because there is time in reality. And God is illogical because he is not bound by logic. So God doesn't exist and is illogical. I would agree.
>> I I don't I don't agree with that that uh sentiment. I don't agree with that description either. Unfortunately, it's just a conclusion drawn by the premises you've given me.
>> It's not I didn't give you any premises yet. So, I haven't given the argument.
>> You did give me a premise because you said that God is not bound by anything that he creates. And you gave me the premise that God created logic and that God is not bound by time. Those are all premises.
>> Maybe I gave you some propositions, but I was not presenting a syllogism. So, I was just giving you some claims that were propositional. Sure, I agree. But I didn't give you my argument. My argument would be in a syllogistic format which would have a certain structure and so forth like motus tools ponent. So if you want to hear the the syllogism I can provide it.
>> Yeah. Go ahead and modice your ponins.
>> Cool. Okay. So the first premise it's really simple. Two premises one conclusion uh anything which can be conceived of exists. Premise two god is conceivable. Conclusion therefore god exists. And premise one is true.
probably you the conclusion is true.
>> You're conflating the idea of existence.
>> How so?
>> Because things can exist conceptually but not exist materially.
>> Well, that's just your pre presupposition. That's just >> that's just true. I can conceive of a purple unicorn in this room right now.
That does not mean that a purple unicorn in this room right now actually exists in like reality.
>> Well, >> it exists conceptually. You can say that God exists conceptually, sure. But that doesn't mean that God exists in reality.
>> Well, that's the problem with your with your understanding is that there is an external world. There is something external to yourself. That's just an assumption. That's not something that you can actually prove, right? It's just >> refct. If we if we get back to soypism, then there's there's nothing that we can be like we can't solve soypism right here on a [ __ ] Tik Tok live. We have to go off of sensory data. We have to go off of what we can perceive. But the idea that anything that can be conceived of exists in reality is just not true because I can conceive of like a a two- foot tall little man doing a tap dance in my hands right now. Is there a two-ft tall little man doing a tap dance in my hands right now?
>> Well, that's not my conception. It's your conception. That's why it's such >> Does that make it real against That's the problem. The problem is that it's your worldview, not my worldview. So because it is a a argument that is internal.
>> I dropped him. Oh, I dropped him. [ __ ] I'm sorry guys. No, not you. The little tap dancing guy. I dropped him.
>> Oh, okay. Well, I mean, look, >> God, he doesn't have insurance. Oh, [ __ ] Reflect. This is going to devastate.
>> Look, I I know it sucks because this is internal critique on your world view.
just exposes the fact that your world view doesn't have an ability to disambiguate between an external world and an internal world. It doesn't have a way to do that. So that's why you're committed to the reality that everything that you are experiencing is just a mental projection. That's really all it is. And you have no way to disamiguate.
So >> okay, so you're you're trying to appeal to soypism now. That's going to again get us nowhere because I could just say that you don't even you're not actually even making that argument right now.
You're just a brain in a jar thinking that you're making that argument. We'll get back to just this this infinite back and forth of like, well, none of this is real. That's completely useless. Let's stick to what you've told me, which is anything that can be conceived of exists. Now, again, when we're talking about existence, there's a difference in existing conceptually and existing materially or in reality.
>> That's an assumption. Don't you wouldn't you agree that you have to demonstrate it?
>> How can you prove that?
>> I demonstrated it by showing that I can conceive of a little tap dancing guy.
This is actually his son. This is little tap dancing guy's son. Now he's only one foot tall doing a little tap dance in my hands. That does not mean that he actually exists. And so >> you conceived.
>> Oh [ __ ] >> Yeah. So if you conceived of it, that means it exists because it is your subjective perspective.
>> Oh, I dropped.
>> It's not >> It's not my It's not my problem because this is the the the limitations of atheism. It restricts you and commits you to these things like idealism.
>> I'm just going to do this whole family.
[ __ ] Like you have been in a dream before, right? You thought all of your experiences were real.
>> I do not know when anything else.
>> You just killed two little men that were dancing.
>> One was just a boy.
>> They at least their legs are broken.
>> It was just a boy.
>> But I I really like this argument because um I've just conceived that atheism is true.
>> So So you are you are contending with one of the premises then? Yes. No, I'm agreeing with all your premises. I'm saying atheism is true is what I conceived and that is con that is true and now there is no god because atheism is true.
>> Uh wait a second. What's that con?
>> That's pretty easy.
>> What are you conceiving of?
>> I've conceived that atheism is true.
>> And atheism is what is a proposition or is a stance on what? What proposition?
>> There that there is no god.
>> Ah so >> I believe that there is no god is true.
>> So in order to to in order to reject this quote unquote god, you had to conceive of it, didn't you?
>> You're still stuck. No, no. I'm saying no God exists.
>> Yeah. You conceive of the lack of a god.
>> Conceive that the world doesn't have a god.
>> And you con you had to conceive of that something in order to reject it. You still >> I'm not conceiving of a god.
>> You didn't get around it.
>> I'm conceiving that there is no god. So it's like I'm conceiving that this that there's nothing there when it comes to any sort of god.
>> Oh, Mezo put it a better way. Um just conceive of a godless universe.
>> Yeah. There's there's a godless universe. That means you had to conceive of a god in order to reject that god.
It's still a problem.
>> No, no, >> it still commits you to this syllogism being true.
>> Well, I can say this. I can say this.
I've con I've conceived of a concept, a word, an idea that is God. I don't really conceive of the actual God, but I conceive what I'm really conceiving of is the godless universe that there is none none of whatever the God would be.
>> So, what does that mean? And if it has no semantic content, then that means it's nothing and you're conceiving of nothing not existing. Does that make sense?
>> Well, what ends up happening, reflect, is that you can conceive of a world where there is a god and I'm going to conceive of the exact opposite world.
And if both of those worlds are true, what do we do?
>> Well, you still had to conceive of a god to reject it. So, you still are still problem. I'm going to conceive of a tri omni god and then I'm going to conceive of a god pew pew and I'm going to pew pew him right between the eyes and I'm going to conceive of him dying on the spot. So now god did exist and I killed him.
>> So you conceived of an ultimate being that is ultimately powerful that was overpowered. Does that make sense?
That's a contradiction. You can't conceive of contradiction but I conceived of it >> contradiction.
>> So it must be real. What do you mean?
There's a new rule in doubt. You can't conceive of a contradiction.
>> Yeah. The one thing you can't conceive of. That's why the argument.
>> Well, there goes my conception of a married bachelor.
>> Anything which can be conceived of exists. That's the whole point. It >> Well, I conceive of this god that is all powerful. And he he's like he's like well it's not even overpowering. He wanted it. He's like I'm tired of this [ __ ] And so he let me kill him.
>> Um >> your cons and your conception.
>> What do you think? What what's >> No, it's a dead god. It's a dead body of a god now. It's God's dead body with a hole between the eyes. He can't do anything.
>> God. Is it a god though?
>> What do you mean by con?
>> It's a corpse.
>> Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> What do you think by what do you mean by conceived of?
>> Conceived of meaning that it is coherent. And if something is coherent, then you can conceive of it. It is something that you can hold within your mind.
>> No, no. Like what do you mean by conceiving of it? Just to be really, really clear.
>> Yeah, I just explained it. That is something which is coherent.
>> Yeah. Then I don't think you can conceive of God because every god idea that I've ever heard of being conceived is incoherent.
>> What's the contradiction?
>> It just like people just don't know what God is. His ways are higher. We cannot understand the God. Don't you think that's true?
>> That's not that's not my question. Well, you said you can't cohhere of it, which means it would be contradictory.
>> Conceive. You got to >> Oh, no. He He both is and isn't bound by logic and time. Didn't you hear that, Joel?
>> I co conceive isn't coherence. Those aren't the same word.
>> Um, what do you think it means then?
>> To conceive is to like imagine, to like be able to think of it in your mind, to, you know, um, sort of conjure it up in your mind.
>> Yeah. And do you think that that is much different than coherence? I think that if you were going to argue that you can conceive of something, it would be something that you could like understand. You could imagine in a uh like to conceive of it to imagine it in a uh maybe not fully realize it. You maybe not have to fully realize it, but I think if you were going to conceive God, you should be able to imagine something coherent.
>> Yeah. So then I don't think we have then we don't have a problem.
>> But you can't.
>> What do you mean? What do you mean you can't? Well, God is not coherent.
>> So, what are you rejecting then? You're rejecting something that's >> I'm rejecting that you can conceive of God.
>> Okay. Well, I disagree with you because you're not me. So, I can conceive of a God. And if you can say that you can >> I disagree. Explain the God. You've explained the God and it better be coherent or you haven't conceived of the God.
>> Yeah.
>> Is it anything like this tap dancing widow that I have in my hand?
>> Don't drop it.
>> Yeah. Please don't drop it. We want We want you to stay sane.
>> Tap dancing widow. She's been through enough.
>> All of the subjective beings.
>> I'm going to gently put her down >> with her imaginary friend.
>> Please don't drop me. I'm tapping. I'm tapping. Goat.
>> And your imaginary world. You're imagining what you're doing right now.
>> Okay. And your god is in your imaginary world.
>> Then I guess we are both on the same boat, aren't we?
>> Mine's a lot Mine's a lot more interesting. Mine's got a family drama going on. your just has a guy who likes to like kill babies.
>> Actually, the funny thing is you don't realize that you just conceded to my argument.
>> If it's a matter of like you you conceiving of a god and then the god being real in your little mind and in your worldview, that's great. And then over here in my worldview, the godless world exists. And that's great. That's also true. And then in Robot Goat's worldview, the dead god that they killed exists. and the sweet little tap dancing widow who's desperate on the desk. Those things exist and so we all have our own little realities and they're all true to us. That's right.
>> So then what you should do is you should not suffer from cognitive dissonance.
You should accept that the conclusion is true and therefore your beliefs should adjust to be in reality.
>> Your your argument when you reduce it down is I believe God exists therefore he must. That is not compelling.
>> No, not at all. Not at all. That is what it boils down to.
>> Well, you're right.
>> You're just saying the reality is solopism, right?
>> You're Well, you're right about one thing. I definitely didn't address the prompt, which is, can you convert this atheist? Probably not. Because I would say that if you don't have any experience with God, then of course you're going to say, "Well, where is he?"
>> Well, Joel and I were both Christians.
God Joel and I are both former Christians. I can't believe I called you God.
>> I can see it. But did you Nobody has experienced coherently. He's made up.
>> That's exactly my point. Because you haven't experienced God. Of course, you're going to come to that conclusion.
>> Yeah. 90% of the world has experienced.
>> I thought that I had.
>> You You thought, but you >> I thought that I had experienced God.
>> But I had not experienced God because God not real.
>> And that what does that tell you? That tells you that of course you're going to come to that conclusion until you experience him. That's why revelation is so important. If you're not This is this is a little Can I Can I slow you down for a second? Cuz like >> Yeah, sure.
>> You you you made this you did this syllogism that's nonsense that's basically saying that everybody has their own reality and it's true to them.
So, anything you can think of is true, but just to you and not in the real world. And then you just like switched it to being that there is an actual god in the real world and we just have to experience it. And that that seems like you're you're kind of jumping all over the place and it and it isn't convincing, but it I don't know what you're what you're trying to do with this.
>> I'll tell you, it's because you don't see my tactics. My tactics are very very very um >> cuz you're they're only conceived in your mind.
>> No, my my my tactics they don't actually exist are very sly and I know how to I know how to get to you in a way that you sound you seem confused. And look, the confusion is because >> if you are planning on confusing, yes, you're nailing.
>> The syllogism holds true in your the syllogism holds true in your worldview.
In my worldview, it makes more sense to not accept this. But in your worldview, you have to accept it. You're committed to it.
>> That's the problem.
>> That's not true.
>> Why would we have to commit to the idea that anything that anyone can think of must exist in reality? Because you have no way to disamiguate between an external world and an internal world, a subjective world and no evidence to an objective world.
>> What about like Well, hold on. Rif what about an intersubjective world?
>> You're a subjective being. How can a subjective being access the objective reality?
>> They're just subjective beings. Like what what if we used like intersubjective like this intsubjective thing where like robot goat and I bounce things off each other and we go did you smell that? And and so that like if we collectively all experience similar things and we're able to measure things using the scientific method we can come to an understanding of what is potentially objective in the world.
>> But what does that just tell you? All you did was demonstrate that she your interlocator myself could be mental projections and all of these experiences just like being in a dream reflect you don't solve soypsism by doing a silly syllogism.
>> We do we do in our world.
>> No one can solve soypsism.
>> Ah that's where you're wrong.
>> You think you've solved soloopsism but you're actually just a brain in a jar who never actually solves soypism. You know why you think you solve solopsism reflect is because somebody said and into your ears with sound waves this is how you solve solopsism >> and you read maybe in a book that was written down and you read with your eyes and touch your hands >> extremely unique and it's only from me no one's ever used it before >> no one's ever used this >> I wonder why >> trust me and you know our our worldview yes we can solve solopypsism because of the fact that and I'll give you an example you have a two-dimensional creature and threedimensional creature.
>> Wait, wait, wait. How do you know that?
How do you know that?
>> I'm giving you an analogy.
>> How do you know how dimensions? How do you What do you mean how do I know?
>> How do you observe the dimensions?
>> Um, I observe it because I have epistemic access to the objective world.
You don't difference.
>> You don't have access to that.
>> I do. I'm I'm going to explain to you how. So, a two-dimensional creature and a threedimensional creature.
Twodimensional creature can only travel within that plane, length and width. A three-dimensional creature quote unquote enters into that two-dimensional space, right? They have a crosshair. It's like a a slit. What they can see is something popped >> Don't say slit.
>> I like that.
>> Okay. Well, something popped into existence.
>> It It grew in size, it shrank, and then it disappeared.
>> I've been there. I've been there.
>> That two-dimensional creature will think to itself, "Wow, what an amazing event.
I just saw a miracle. Something just popped in and it popped out." It would have no way to determine whether or not that was a real experience, not a real experience, a three-dimensional quote unquote creature unless it is revealed to from outside of its frame. It has to be revealed to. Information has to be obtained from outside of the subjective frame. That's the only way you can gain epistemic access to something outside of a subject by something that is objective outside of it. So God is necessary in that sense in order for us to know what's outside of our subjective frame.
That's why it's so important. If you're a theist, you have that epistic, >> but you're just claiming it >> to objectivity.
>> You only Yeah. You're you're perceiving that you've been given this revelation with your own senses, with your body, your mind, which you cannot rely on if the there is the problem of soypism. So again, you cannot solve soypsism.
>> If that were my worldview, I would agree with you. But that's not my worldview.
My world view, >> the one you just presented is not your worldview.
>> No, my worldview.
>> Turns out Turns out that >> Turns out that there's a floating turquoise non uh um sorry um invisible hamster that talks that uh has revealed objective reality to me, too.
>> Okay.
>> It's just an assertion, right? It sounds stupid.
>> Well, only if only because I know you're lying to me, I wouldn't agree with you.
He couldn't know that.
>> Oh, I I don't I know because of the veracity that you have within this conversation. I know that you have a motive and your motive is going to present.
>> We just got a great hold on course.
>> We just got a great super chat because reflect. Are you aware that many people like well that generally time is also considered to be dimensional.
>> Time is dimensional. Yes. Sure. So if God is at temporal then he is the lower dimensional creature because he exists outside of that dimension of time.
>> I didn't say outside of I said he's not restricted by or bound by outside of is a spatial notion and God is not spatial.
So that doesn't make sense. So that that's that just doesn't work. But I want to actually >> time is a spatial notion.
>> Yeah. I want to actually address the point about your inferences which you were alluding to. We were saying that you know you have to access that revelation through inference and and experience and so forth which is actually not our worldview. Our worldview is that we have two different forms of revelation. One is an internal form called and the second form is called wahi. That internal revelation is something which is non-inferential. That means you don't have to go through certain experiences and through time.
That's something that's inscribed upon you before you even existed. You wouldn't be able to acknowledge it being inscribed upon you without your experiences.
>> No, that that's not true. I said it was non-inferential. So, it's not something you have to experience.
>> You >> It's not something you have to experience in this fourdimensional world.
>> Yeah.
>> Because it's inscribed upon you before you come into >> Yeah. But reflect. You would not be able to acknowledge it being inscribed upon you if not through your own subjective experience.
You're >> you could say that it's there, but in order to acknowledge it, in order to comprehend it, you must use your senses.
>> That's not true. How do you explain instincts? Like a child knows how to suckle as soon as it comes out of the womb without having any experience of it because it has been inscribed upon that child. That's why God makes sense of instincts as well. Instincts are denoting actually an intelligence and God and life and so forth. So, it actually makes perfect sense to have a knowledge giver that's pre-influenced.
That's >> reflecting. That's not how instinctual behavior works. I >> I feel like this is just God of the Gapes and you really can't show anything. It's just like you're going, "We solved this by positing God." But you haven't really. It's >> I mean, no one's ever solved it but me.
I'm the first one to do it.
>> You haven't solved it. It's just a claim, buddy.
>> You guys heard it here. Reflect King on Tik Tok through his experiences has solved solopypsism and has access to objective reality in which there is and isn't a god. There is also a dead god and there is a grieving tap dancing widow and a turquoise space hamster.
>> I would love reflect. I would love if it were true. Genuinely, I would love that it were true that right now solopism is true and you are the only brain in the vat and all of this these these like me robot goat every all the text going by that's all just your imagination and you're conceiving >> you're solving soypism for yourself and nobody else that would be hilarious >> look I've run the argument on literally every a class, a tier tick tocker. Why'd you bring it here?
>> I've I've run it on um what's his name?
Dr. Blitz. He he couldn't stand up to it. I've run >> I'm sure he laughed you out of his [ __ ] life.
>> No, he he actually gaffed so many times.
It was hilarious. Um but really, none of you >> have I have we I just want to see your standard for what that is. How How have we held me and Joel dream team?
>> I don't think I don't think you gaffed.
I think you just don't realize your hidden assumptions that have to be really cashed out. And in order to really understand the argument in its depth, you have to actually challenge your assumptions. Challenge your there is objective reality. I do have epistemic access to the objective world.
You have to challenge those things. And that's exactly what this syllogism exposes. It exposes your worldview for what it is. And it forces you to have to rethink things, which is good because it's all about reflection. I think I think genuinely you're you're you're like especially like look at your picture. You've really inflated yourself to all sorts of crazy heights that >> are just not realistic. Reflect >> and anything just a random fun fact that I'm sharing just for for chat for no one in particular. Uh but you should not decrease the dosage of any sort of medication without express permission from your doctor. Uh like that is something that you definitely need to I'm just sharing this as like a a PSA for chat not about anyone in particular.
Uh but if you are planning to reduce the dosage of any medication, make sure that you have approval from a medical professional. Um just a good rule of thumb, right?
>> I agree.
>> I agree. But under my worldview, that would be great advice. Under your worldview, well, it doesn't matter anyway because, you know, everything is just a mental projection. It's a dream.
It's a hallucination. You have no way to tell whether it is or isn't.
>> Just because we can't solve the problem of solopsism doesn't mean that we believe that nothing is real.
>> Well, what it what it forces you to accept is that either absolutely everything that is coherent is real or absolutely nothing is real. you you either come to one conclusion or the other and you already admitted it.
>> Is it coherent for there to be an invisible unicorn in the room with me right now >> under your worldview? Yeah. Yeah.
>> So, does that mean that so does that mean that it it is it is true that that unicorn exists >> in your worldview? Yeah.
>> Yes, it is. So if you if you're saying that God exists and this unicorn exists, um then yeah, that makes sense cuz two things that just don't exist, um you can say are true because of >> your [ __ ] access to a dimension that we just haven't conceived of yet because it's not inscribed on our hearts. Cuz like babies know how to suck on a tit.
So that must mean that God is inscribing wisdom on everyone's hearts.
>> That's right. Look, hey, the conclusion, therefore, God exists. You have to accept it. It is just the reality.
>> I will say God exists conceptually but not in not in reality.
>> Honestly, honestly, we don't have to accept anything you've said. Nothing that you said. Listen, listen. Nothing that you said explains anything, predicts anything, or makes our lives better or worse in any way. You're not doing anything. It's just making a claim and positing something that has no evidence.
>> It's not my job to change your mind.
It's my job just to present to you nothing. You're saying your world view because honestly the the quote unquote solve could be literally anything. It could even be the universe itself. Why not, >> right? We we could have we could have reality and our senses be like on the nose. So, we can't just conceive of things, but what we actually can measure empirically is what is reality. That could be the case.
>> You know, I'm conceiving of a I'm conceiving of a really wet box right now.
>> Do you think that could >> do you think that's something that's that could be is or do you think that's something that could be maybe?
>> Yeah, the latter.
>> Okay. So if it may be then that tells you that the epistemic tool that you are using to access that truth to come to that conclusion that it may be that claim itself is just facious. It's problematic. It's a tool that cannot work because it cannot give you >> what we're talking. See, you're not saying anything. It cannot give you knowledge.
>> And what's so frustrating is you think that you're the most brilliant person ever and you're completely spouting nonsense. And it's so frustrating to talk to people like you who are just like, "Well, actually, I'm the smartest person ever, and I've solved this thing that nobody else can solve because anything that I believe must be true."
We we we don't give you knowledge. That's a problem.
>> Reflect. We don't come to knowledge through our imaginations.
>> That's that's your claim. But the problem is you're going to have to prove that. You're going to have to present it. Demonstrate it. If you can demonstrate, >> you demonstrate you demonstrate your god first.
>> I have a question if I can real quick. I I just I must have missed. So, like reflect when um Robot Goat said there's like could there be an invisible pink unicorn in the room? You kept going like in your worldview. Yeah. But is that in in your worldview? Is there one?
>> Well, my worldview doesn't hold to certain assumptions. And so, of course, >> in your world, there's not a pink unicorn in the room with me right now.
>> In my worldview, no, of course not.
Because I don't But how do you um know that? because I know that I don't hold to those assumptions. That's not hard to answer.
>> Yeah. So, I don't hold to the assumption that a god exists.
>> What? What do you mean you don't hold to what assumption? That unicorns exist?
>> No, I don't hold to the assumptions that I don't have a way to disambiguate between an external world and and a subjective world. I know I have access.
Because you don't have access, you can only assume that this objective world >> Yeah. I don't know if you I think you're in here, Mezzo, but he's the only person in existence who's ever solved >> solopism. But that's what I'm trying to see. So, how do you like in your view, there is a god who could make a pink unicorn be in the room with me right now? Right. They have the power to do that.
>> Uh, he has the power to do that. Sure.
>> He Interesting. So, how do you know he didn't?
>> How do I know? Well, I >> It's possible he did and maybe he didn't, right? I only know what God has shown and revealed. And what God has shown >> has he revealed to you whether or not there is a unicorn in in the room with me right now?
>> No, not not today.
>> So, it's a maybe for you.
>> Um, about the fact or the the non-fact of whether or not there is a purple unicorn in your room. Yeah, I don't have I don't have access to that because I'm not in your room.
>> So, in your world view, the answer is maybe. Wait, so what about the little tap dancing family that I was holding >> in my in my No, I I have I can trust what God has told me I can trust. God has told me I can trust my senses. God has told me that I can trust for to to a certain degree. These are three different >> Can I ask how he tells you that?
>> Sure.
>> Is it an audible thing or oh from reading it?
>> Oh the book that you have to read with your eyes.
>> It's it's two forms. It's like I told you there's two forms. There's an internal form of >> sorry which book says hey I'm God dear reflect you can trust your senses.
>> Yeah. So he calls it and in the book right and those are the three book you talking about.
>> Oh this is the Quran. Yeah if you didn't know the Arabic. So that means that God is telling us that there are certain certain types of truths that we can access through these different forms but revelation is the ultimate form. It's the form that supersedes any other. Is that through reading with your eyes?
>> Yeah, that that's what he says.
>> Yeah, but how do you know? But you're assuming that what you read with your eyes is true. If what you read with your like if your eyes are not trustworthy, then how can you trust that the word of God that you're reading is actually there?
>> I could have a brain in the vat with me that I'm running a simulation for and I could make that brain think it read a book and in the book I could make it think that it said this book is true and you have you are right to trust your senses. But see, you guys forgot the first part of that which I said there were two different forms and I explained what the internal form is. That internal form which is not I can write all that in brain. Yeah. In that 10 brain.
>> He's really good at coding. Have you not seen badbiblehub.com?
>> Yeah. I mean it's resonance resonance with the external is gives you a strong sense that that is revelation. Yeah. So when >> is the thing that's in question if the sense is true as strong as it is it's all simulated. It's also >> do you do you not know what solopypsism is?
>> Novest understand what solopypsism is.
What I'm saying is >> you solved a different thing than you think you did.
>> No. What I'm saying is is that there are different types of of inclinations internally that a person has. A person can have an inclination that comes from revelation. Person can have an inclination that comes from their own nefs which is called desire like the lower base self. It can be >> those are all from the simulation. Those are programmed from the simulation.
Those aren't real. If I if I, for example, were a grown man who had a desire to marry a nine-year-old, would that be something that >> I knew it was going to go here. I knew it was going to go. I don't know why atheists do this. To me, it's like just like, I don't know, some kind of a brain malfunction. The only thing you guys go to is that argument as >> Oh, sure. How about 434 instead?
>> I mean, >> we can go to 434. You prefer that >> pivot to morality.
>> Do you prefer that? Do you prefer that reflecting? Well, look, pivoting to morality, I think, is just a copout.
Like, if you can't deal with the reality, >> well, it's just you're saying that your book gives you objective revelations that must mean that, hey, it's objectively okay to marry a 9-year-old.
>> Well, obviously morality is in the realm of what God says is, not in the realm of what people think.
>> It seems God says this is okay. So, that must mean that it is moral to marry a 9-year-old.
>> You also don't understand the worldview.
You don't also don't understand how morals work within them.
>> Okay. Well, then can you explain to me if Well, then tell me whether or not it's it is moral.
>> Look, all this proves to me is that you've conceded.
>> Can you tell me that it is moral or not moral?
>> Hey, look, we can we can do that so that you can go ahead and kick me and this is your way to get out of it. You can do that. But what I'm going to tell you is you've conceded that anything which can be conceived of exists. God is conceivable. Therefore, God exists. You have lost that part. not conceiving that that happened, but that doesn't make sense.
>> Yeah, you conceived of it, which yeah, it doesn't mean it exists.
>> It's weird how you haven't immediately like why did you not immediately condemn the marrying of a n like why why are you having to go on this whole tirade about like oh you're using this as a moral excuse to kick me? It just like go again. I'm going to defend it again, >> right? Like oh you're going to get mad that I'm defending marrying a child.
Like >> no it's like the atheist sick mind. Like you guys go into this sickness and you start talking about, you know, marrying children and stuff. You guys, you guys have that problem.
>> Hey, uh, you realize we're not the ones we're not the ones we're not the ones who are getting our information from someone who did that. Reflect.
>> I'm also not the one that advocates for child marriage. You started talking about it, which is sickening to me. So, condemn it.
>> Do that.
>> I'm condemning what you're talking about. Yes.
>> Condemn. Condemn what Muhammad did.
>> What you're talking about?
>> Condemn the actions of Muhammad.
>> Child's marriage is >> reflect king. Condemn the actions of Muhammad.
>> Oh, what you should do is you should just kick me cuz you love >> No, I'm not kicking you because I want I want to hold your feet to this [ __ ] fire. Reflect.
>> Oh, I can sing so much better than you.
You do not want to go down that road.
>> Just reflect just so we can get back to the solopism thing. do a quick thing where yeah, Muhammad was a piece of [ __ ] He shouldn't have done that. And let's get back to the thing.
>> Nice try, Mezo. Meo, I beat you last time we talked. You lost the last time we debated. You've lost every single point.
>> And look, atheists lose. Nonetheist has ever beat me.
>> Reflect. Can you just Can you just real quick condemn the actions of Muhammad?
>> I really don't remember talking to >> Can you condemn what you said earlier?
What you said about, you know, marrying children? Can you condemn that, please?
I think that's I condemn marrying children. Can you condemn the actions of Muhammad for marrying a child?
>> So, please don't ever talk about it again. That's disgusting.
>> Can you condemn the actions of Muhammad?
>> I love this. Let's sweep it under the rug and no again. No one ever mentioned that things happen to children. Like, this is a great solution for >> You shouldn't talk about it. Reflect.
>> You shouldn't talk about it. That's disgusting.
>> Not to condemn it.
>> Believe that atheists do this all the time.
>> Bringing up something to condemn it is bad.
um bringing it up and and talking about it.
>> So if we acknowledge the fact that like human trafficking exists and say that's horrible and it shouldn't happen and you shouldn't support anyone who does it, that is a bad thing.
>> I think what you did earlier that was a bad thing. Yes.
>> Okay. Then condemn the actions of Muhammad.
>> I think you should condemn what you said.
>> Let Let me ask you this real quick. Do you think the hol just to check was the Holocaust bad?
>> Do you guys condemn like this is not working?
>> I don't know why you're not answering.
You're the one dodging was the Holocaust bad.
>> Oh no. Oh no. You've run away from my argument.
>> Was the Holocaust bad? Reflect.
>> Uh killing anybody is is bad.
>> Answer the question.
>> Anybody is bad. Anybody? It wouldn't matter if it's what odd question to look at.
>> Why are you dodging?
>> Look at how much the atheist has to do to get away from their world view being contradictory.
>> You're dodging.
>> You have to insinuate.
>> I am going to mute you cuz you just won't stop talking. We are giving you like the easiest question ever. Just condemn the Holocaust.
>> Oh, that's very easy to condemn all evil and holocaust.
>> Condemn the Holocaust about it. Why do we talk about such disgusting >> condemn the Holocaust?
>> You're condemning you. I think that you're terrible.
>> Me, but not the Holocaust. Why are you condemning me but not the horrible horrible things? You're able to condemn >> sad.
>> You can do it.
>> You're able to condemn a bad action, right?
>> You just did it with robot goat.
>> Yes. If you have >> So, you are able Stop interrupting. Just listen to this for a second.
>> Go ahead.
>> You are You've proved that you're able to condemn something bad. You just condemned a robot goat. You won't do it for the Holocaust or for pedophilia, but you're able to do it. So, you're able to make moral.
>> Look at Look at the picture they have to paint now. They have to paint.
>> So, go ahead.
go ahead and unpaint our picture.
>> Clearly condemn the Holocaust and clearly condemn the marrying of Muhammad and Aisha.
>> I could I could care less about >> I could care less what you think about me.
>> I have proven my point.
>> Yes, you have proven your point. You're you're a monster.
>> Your worldview disgusting. You're egotistical and you have nothing to You haven't solved anything. You think you're full of yourself and nothing else. You didn't solve solitism. You won't like say the Holocaust was bad.
You're a nightmare. You should like really never come back up there.
>> Run away.
>> I just explained the whole thing that you just did. This isn't a runaway.
>> We're faced all of it.
>> And I'll I'll be happy to keep you on if you just condemn either one. Condemn the actions of Muhammad or condemn the Holocaust. You can pick which one you want to condemn.
>> What I'll do is this. You guys got embarrassed. I'm sorry you got embarrassed. I'll get better next time.
Goodbye. And all your audience, >> become theist, guys. Everybody, >> be more like this guy.
>> The worst ones I've ever debated. You guys did the worst job.
>> Be like this [ __ ] guy. Obviously, this is who you want to be.
>> Unbelievable.
Like honestly, he could have lied. He could have been like, "Yeah, I condemn the Holocaust." Even though he secretly doesn't. Like he could just say that and then we could have kept talking. That was crazy.
>> Yeah, that that o the fact that he just kept being like, I condemn all evil, but wouldn't [ __ ] condemn the Holocaust.
>> Well, he didn't think it was evil. So, that's like the nice move.
>> Yeah. Right, right, right, right.
>> What a nightmare. What a nightmare it must be to live inside that guy's mind.
And he didn't even condemn that you killed that tiny little man >> and his son.
I left the widow alive.
>> That part you you should probably just like at this point put her out of her.
>> No, she's still going.
>> But she's probably pretty sad. It might be best to >> Oh, she's been sobbing the whole like the whole time. Just >> It's probably best to end it. I'm just gonna put that out there.
>> You think I should?
Okay.
Tik Tok, don't we have to get me in trouble for that. It's an imaginary press.
>> Guys, this is what Mezo This is what Mezo said I should do.
I don't Oh, no.
I'm I'm sorry, guy.
I'm sorry.
He told me.
Look, Mezzo is someone I trust and so if I'm sorry.
Um I I I want to get ahead of it. I want to apologize now to my audience. I should not have dropped that tiny little invisible widow um while she was mid tap dance morning her tap dancing family that I also dropped. Um you know I'm sorry if you were offended by that. Um clearly my actions were influenced by other people. Um and if you're really upset about it um that's really having an emotional impact on me. So, you should stop doing that because it'll make me sad. Um, I I just want to clarify that. Um, so I'm sorry that you're uh that you got offended by that. Is that a good apology? All right. Next up.
>> Yeah. Hello.
>> Well, hello. Hello. Can I get your name, age, and pronouns?
>> Yeah. My name is Cap. I'm 18 again.
>> All right. Cap. What's your religion or lack thereof? Yeah, I just believe that there is a god. Um, and by god here about >> just a mind that created the universe axiologically motivated to bring about value.
>> Oh, [ __ ] hell. All right.
>> Um, so I have an argument. Basically, the idea is just that there's this data.
It's more expected under theism than naturalism. So then you get an update in favor of theism. Um, and so there's a lot of moving parts here we need to unpack. So the first one is what is naturalism? It's just a thesis that everything that exists is a result of natural causes. Um it's completely indifferent to value. Um in the data we here we're talking about fine-tuning for discoverability. Now um fine-tuning for discoverability is just the idea that there's a a wide range of ways that the the universe could have been. Then that wide range there's a narrow range that's life permitting and then even narrower, right? there's a range that is not only life permitting but also discoverable.
Um, and we're saying that under naturalism we have reason to um assume the principle of indifference. Um, and the principle of indifference just talks about if you have no reason to update your probabilities, you treat them all as equally probable. Um, and so yeah, that's basically the idea. And then we draw out the prediction under theism using value. Right? If this mind is motivated to bring about value then obviously uh it would act to bring about value and discoverability is valuable and yeah that's the idea.
>> Gotcha.
>> Cool. Um just sorry just adding something to my stream for no particular reason. Um yes you would have to give me like evidence for why I should believe anything that you're saying.
Yeah. What what exactly do you need evidence for?
Do you want evidence for the data? Do you want evidence for the predictions?
>> Yeah, give me the data. Yeah.
>> Okay. Well, the data just is the finetuning. Um, we're talking about epistemic possibility. So, we know >> finetuning. You're you're going for a little different.
>> Um, and there's a wide range of ways that the constants could have been different for all we know, right?
There's no like when we talk about epistemic classability. um they could be necessary. The constants could be necessary under metaphysical modality, but we're talking about >> and that comes to us courtesy of Nathan.
Nathan paid to kick. Um so, thank you, Nathan, for sparing all of us.
people who are saying that I got cooked when I hadn't said anything yet, my friends.
I'm glad that you brought all your cronies in here, though, Cap. That's nice. It's always good when like the glossery guys decide to bring in like tons of people. Uh anyway, someone paid 10 to kick you, even though five was the required amount, so they doubly wanted you [ __ ] gone. Uh so GG's to Nathan for that one.
Cap. paid you. Sorry, I paid I kicked you because I was paid to kick you. I was literally sent money to kick you.
Welcome in, Amos. Can I get your age and pronouns?
Apparently not.
>> Yo, what's up?
>> Hey, could I get your name and your pronouns?
>> Uh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. You can call me scholar. I'm 19. And you can call me whatever you want.
>> Okay. So, if chat were going to refer to you, would they say he, she, they, something else?
>> Yeah, it doesn't matter.
>> All right. I expect everyone to respect her pronouns. So, scholar, um, what is your religion or lack thereof?
>> Yeah, I'm Eastern Orthodox.
>> Fun. Um, you gonna convert me?
>> When you mean by convert, you just mean like you'll after this conversation, it's expected to lead to you believing in my God.
>> Well, I am an atheist, so to convert me would be to get me to believe in a religion.
>> Okay, great. All right, that's fine. Um, you want the argument?
whatever you want to give me.
>> Yeah, sure. Um, I guess we can start with I'm guessing you um you know what intuitions are.
>> Um I think I do, but I don't really have a good explanation for why. I just have a feeling that I do.
>> Okay, great. Um I guess we can start off right here. Okay, that's fine. Listen.
Um, do you think that um we can just start off with um do you think that contingent things exist?
>> Some.
>> Yeah. Do you think that um contingent things exist?
>> Yeah, I said some.
>> Yeah. Okay, great. Um okay, so P1 is just there are things that exist that are at least one contingent thing. Okay, you agreed with that. Okay. So, in P2, right, do you think that contingent things require explanations?
>> What do you mean?
>> That they're not brute facts.
>> Contingent things require explanation.
Requiring explanations doesn't mean that they're not brute facts.
>> Yeah. Wait, that's that's true. Wait, hold on. No, no. Brute facts are the type of things that don't require explanations, >> right? that things can there are things that can not require explanation that are not brute facts and there are there are brute facts that oh sorry uh let me just check real quick okay no um it does not mean when you say that something doesn't require an explanation that doesn't make it a brute fact >> never I never said that I'm just as I'm just stating that for every contingent being it depends on something else for its existence it's contingent right on another thing.
>> Contingent being.
>> Yeah, those content.
>> You just said contingent thing.
>> Yeah, we can just that's a given X and then you know we can just put that X, right, for >> there there are things that you might say are contingent that are not beings.
>> Yeah, that's fine. Okay, listen. P1 just says there are at least one contingent beings or any given items, right? You agreed with that. Then I said for everything for every contingent being or for every contingent item that requires an explanation for that given item or thing.
>> For every >> No.
>> Yeah. Do you you don't think that? Why?
>> Um because a rock rolling down a hill depends on the rock like having some sort of force that causes it to go down the hill. It doesn't require an explanation. It just happens.
>> Yeah. You just you just explained it.
You just you just explained why that happened. But but if that occurs, it doesn't require an explanation to occur.
It just occurs.
>> So if you So if you said wait, so if I was to say, it would occur regardless of whether or not I explained it.
>> Hold on. You don't know. No, no. You Those things require an effect and require an explanation. You can't just say the rock rolled down because it rolled down. That's circular.
>> I That's not what I'm saying. Not saying I'm saying it will occur regardless of whether or not it is explained.
>> Yeah, I know it will happen regardless of explained. I'm just saying those things need explanations. You can't just because it will be then become viciously circular. Do you agree or disagree?
Wait, no. Why do you not think these things will be viciously circular?
>> Because if it if it occurs regardless of explanation, it does not require an explanation. for it to require an explanation, it would mean that it would not occur in the absence of an explanation. But because there are things that are unexplained, then therefore it does not require explanation. And somebody already paid to kick you to scholar. I might have to put a time limit on that cuz I didn't know that this this would go that quickly. Um, wait, I'm sorry. Is there a user in chat? Oh no, there's a user in chat called grieving widow.
Oh, that is unfortunate timing.
Welcome to the chat. Nobody paid though. Uh actually it was by Grana Zana for uh so >> Oh my god.
>> Discord obsessed with me, by the way. I can't believe it.
>> Oh my gosh.
>> Oh my gosh.
>> It's such an honor to be here.
>> Wow. Oh, I'm sure that it is. So, secret eye. What is what are your name, age, and pronouns?
>> Well, my name is Secret. My age is told.
>> Well, you can you can tell me.
>> And my pronouns are he, him.
>> What's your name? You can tell me.
>> Oh, my p my personal information.
>> Well, just like what you want to be called.
>> Oh, secret.
>> No, it's okay. You can tell me.
>> Oh, you could call me Jossi. You know how to say that?
>> Josie?
>> Yeah. Yeah, I knew it'd be a little bit difficult for you. Um, so I just decided to go by my internet alias.
>> Gotcha. So, um, what is your religion or lack thereof?
>> Uh, yeah, I'm Muslim.
What about you?
Okay. You're atheist. Okay, awesome. So, >> yeah, I knew that would be hard for you.
No, I was just confirming, you know, we're trying to have like a good faith dialogue, going back and forth here, learning things about each other, sharing names, you know, just really having a good time together. So, >> I like my name is Robot Goat or T, whichever one you want to go with.
>> Um, >> okay.
>> I'm a Leo son.
>> Um, you >> um I don't know. Uh cuz actually recently I learned that uh star signs like they change and um there's like new information and you know updating such that we will we don't really take the original understanding of what our signs are. So I actually don't know where my sign is. I'm kind of just like among the stars really trying to find myself. But listen, let's just get into the conversation and have a good faithful linear discussion about >> so cool. Sorry. Uh go on Ballsy.
>> Yeah. So what? You're going to make fun of my name? Is it cuz it's like ethnic?
>> Ethnic?
>> Where does ballsy come from?
>> Is is a is a Ghanaian name? Were you calling me ballsy? Like are you like trying to make a like a play on word of my name? Like >> you Well, you asked me if I could say your name. You didn't ask if I knew how to spell it.
>> No, no, no, no. I'm saying you called me Ballsy as a play on my name, which is Josie.
>> It's more funny cuz it's like a misnomer, right?
>> Are you Are you intentionally doing that because it like is is not conventional?
Like if it was Jason, like maybe you'd respect it a little bit more and maybe not make fun of it. Is like is that what's going on right now?
>> If it was Jason, I probably would have spelled it with two S's, so it had ass in it.
>> Okay. But I I wasn't talking about spelling. I was talking about pronunciation. But let's get back into the linear faith discussion. Ah, good faith discussion. I'm I misspoke. I'm sorry.
>> Gay. That's funnier. [ __ ] I would have called you Gay.
>> Okay. So, this is just like blatant racism. Thank you. Now, let's continue.
>> Racism. Hello.
>> Yeah, let's continue.
>> Cuz I'm calling you ballsy.
Yeah, let's continue. So, as I was saying, right, um I just think God, >> okay, I just think God exists uh because uh it's the best possible explanation for the evidence we have access to. So, I'm just going to make some sort of abductive argument for God's existence.
>> Abduct away, Ballsy.
>> Okay. So, well, I don't uh care for the ad homs and the racist reports, but >> it's not an ad, and I haven't said a single [ __ ] racist.
>> Can I Can I Can I finish my sentence without being caught? Not if you're accusing me of things that aren't true.
>> Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
>> As I was saying before you rudely interrupted me.
>> I just think when we examine >> Oh my gosh. Whenever we examine Gohead.
>> Yeah. Whenever we examine >> Sorry, there's a delay.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Can you just like stop talking? Maybe mute meet your mic. Like would that help you a little bit?
>> Like I'll just You can go ahead and you can go ahead and go.
>> Oh my gosh. white tea people, bro. Am I right? As I was saying, whenever we look at >> Well, you just see you have a sense of intent.
>> Anyway, thank you, Timothy.
Thank you, Timothy, for the five with with the caption. Bye, Ballsy.
Uh, damn. I might have to put in a timer.
Um.
Oh, now I know who Timothy is. I don't know.
Do you want me to say it? But thank you.
We've got someone who's supposed to be loading in.
Nope.
I can't spell now. We got it.
It's very interesting that I just made like a funny little joke about his name being secret and he got so ass hurt that it turned into that.
Well, church [ __ ] thank you for getting rid of that. Uh cuz that was uh all right. You are not loading in. If you want to re-request, you may try.
Amos, welcome back. You hear me this time?
>> Yeah, I can hear you this time.
>> Wonderful. So, you above 18?
>> I am 45.
>> Great. And what pronoun should we use for you?
>> Uh, you can use I.
>> Well, that's going to get confusing.
Um, but those are pronouns, >> right? But if I am talking to I, then I wouldn't know what to say to we.
>> Then you can say we, that would be fine for you if you're confused, >> right? But if I am talking about like I's religion, then how would I know what I is saying? Because >> wouldn't you say that? Wouldn't you say that people that use pronouns are already confused? So what's wrong with >> No, I would say every every person alive uses pronouns. I know we all use pronouns. You asked me for >> So I guess I guess we are all confused.
>> Yeah, you're right. I said I we. Did you not ask for pronouns?
>> Right. It's just uh those are first person pronouns.
>> And when people ask what are your pronouns, they're asking what are your third person?
>> You mean what are my third person pronouns?
>> Yeah.
>> Oh, so you didn't understand how to ask for third person.
Uh, you know, I just I kind of understand like how the the way the conversation works because >> everyone everyone would refer to themselves as like I or if they're using first person singular, sorry, first person plural, they would say we. That is universally true. So that's not something I would need to ask you, right? That's something that is universally true of every single person.
Um, so if I'm asking you what your pronouns are, that would mean that I'm asking which ones you specifically would use or want to be used in reference to you, which is generally understood by people who are not being bad faith.
>> Oh, so okay. Got it. Got it. Now I understand.
>> I hope you do.
>> Yeah, I understand. So you asked me, "What are your pronouns?" And I said, Oh, okay. Pronouns. There's a lot of pronouns. Um, I we. And you go, I'm confused. And I go, why are you confused? Because you just asked for pronouns. And I gave you a couple of pronouns, but you should have said, Amos, can you can you give me your third person pronouns, but you don't know how to actually help? Oh, I couldn't have done that because if I had said you, I would have been assuming your second person pronouns >> and I wouldn't want to assume your second person pronouns. Um, so >> yeah. So I'm a dude with a male genitalia. Can we just go on?
>> Damn you guys. So by you Billiot just pay 10 to kick this [ __ ] We got $4 from wherefore out art thou bae with just a period. And we got Kevin Smith 3210 sitting over two to say ass hurt is kind of homophobic. Excuse me.
Straight people can do anal.
Anyway, new favorite vice. Welcome in.
How's it going?
>> It's going all right. Can I get your name, age, and pronouns?
>> Uh, you can call me Vice. Uh, I'm gonna go 27 and he him.
>> Wonderful. Wow, that was surprisingly easy for you to answer.
>> Yeah, I've been listening to the last few conversations. I don't know if they actually like wanted to make a point about religion, but that just got so lost in the new like minutia so quickly.
Uh, no. They It's just a bunch of them all are in the same like Discord community and once they like find a specific streamer that they really latch on to, they all come in and like flood the chat in support of like their bro.
Uh, and that's why you'll see like a bunch of people be like, "Let up so and so. Let up soand so." Um, and then like the moment they're up, people being like, "Oh, oh, they're cooking. He's cooking you. You're so cooked. Like host, you've been cooked." Um, before like anything has even been said because it doesn't actually depend on the conversation. They are just going to like keep their friend's dick in their mouth the entire time.
>> Sounds like a fun setup you got going on.
>> I'm not doing it. Uh so Vice, uh what religion are you planning to convert me to?
>> Uh Christianity.
>> Interesting. Okay. Well, I am a former Christian, so you would technically be reconverting me.
>> Um what denomination were you?
>> I was Southern Baptist.
AA Sab.
>> Oh, really? Interesting. All right.
Well, that kind of makes your odds a little worse, doesn't it?
>> I'm a bit more denominational, but I grew up in the South, so I'm exposed to it a lot.
>> I mean, me, too. I grew up in Alabama.
>> Oh, yeah. That's deep. Okay.
>> Yeah.
>> Um, so I guess, um, what made you drop it?
>> Uh, so I started getting exposed to other worldviews and realized that what I've been told was the absolute truth.
um might not be.
So, I started looking into my beliefs, investigating them more from an outside perspective and just found that it didn't hold up. Um I I I don't believe that uh that God exists.
>> Okay. Um and I do want to This is such an easy like you can see where it's coming a mile away. I promise this isn't a gotcha. Have you actually Have you read through the whole book?
>> Yeah. Okay. Um, what was it that like uh was in the book itself that I guess you're saying like what you thought was absolute truth from being exposed to other worldviews started making you question it. What was it that you start questioning?
>> Uh, yeah. So, one just like the validity of the Bible itself, right? I was taught apologetics constantly because I went to a religious school from like preschool, elementary, middle school, high school.
Um, so I was taught a lot of apologetics and sometimes those didn't quite make sense to me, but I accepted that they were true because they were being told to me by people I trusted. But the more I looked into them, the more they started to fail. So there are just some aspects of the Bible like the contradictions, the inaccuracies, and the atrocities that the God commits in the Bible that just don't make sense.
>> I guess that's fair. I >> if you if you are partaking in any sort of substance use, I ask that you discontinue it while on my life.
>> Oh, sorry. It's Yeah, sorry.
>> I'll put that away. Um, so you came to the conclusion from looking at some outside views from reading the text that um there were contradictions in it, you said, and um the validity of it you questioned. Um, I guess what's the >> because honestly, listen, I could go through point by point, but I don't think that's going to convert anyone. I really think that's a terrible method of doing it. But I do think when it comes to a matter of conversion, there is something that happens where two people read the same book and they come away with two very different conclusions. I don't think it's fair to say that either of them are dumb or unfounded. I think they're both putting in a lot of effort.
So the question becomes, why do some people read the book and they come to the conclusion it's true? and why do some people read the book and they come conclusion it's false? My argument and it's totally fine if you disagree it's more of a hypothesis than like a theory is that it is a matter of heart posture. You could have intellectual people smarter than both of us who are religious people >> I mean you can use a different phrasing a more secular phrasing but it's the same mindset stubbornness of ego.
Yeah, that that is a phrase I only hear coming from Christians, typically apologists specifically. Oh, I got to sneeze. Hold on.
>> Kazoom.
>> It's just there are some things that are presented in the Bible that are blatantly untrue. There are things that are presented in the Bible that contradict each other directly and there are things in the Bible that just don't comport with an allloving, all powerful, all knowing God.
But here's the thing, Christians come at it like this whole heart posture thing. Basically, it boils down to, well, if you came into it expecting it to be true, then you would believe it's true. And that that's really what heart posture boils down to. which is just not super convincing because it it's basically means that if you already have a presupposition that that it's true then you're more likely to believe in it which yes obviously but has nothing to do with the actual truth of the text itself.
um the presupposition that's true. I do think that's valid. But when I talk about heart posture, I guess when I the secular phrasing that I used was stubbornness of ego, I do think that from a lot of point of view, like you said, it doesn't line up for what a loving all powerful God should be like.
And yes, you can get into really dangerous territory if you just say that, well, if God is God, then he can act however he wants and therefore I just have to accept that. But it does beg the question, who am I? If God is real, if there is a God, not saying a presupposition that's true, but just leaving the possibility open that my understanding of what love is correct, >> it comes from a place.
>> So you're saying that he has like a different way of understanding than ours.
>> Not that his way of understanding I mean it does say that his way is greater than ours, but it's what we see. Um, >> are its barbaric test of its blessed beed.
Bravo.
>> Thank you.
>> You already had that pulled up. That was nice.
>> Uh I when someone goes down a certain avenue, I try to be primed on the button. Uh so if you ever say context, you better get your ass ready.
>> Oh, I got context primed up. Don't you worry.
>> I know you're waiting for it. Um but no, when I when I do mean that his way is higher than ours, it is easy from looking at especially in a world that is very obviously um I would say unfair, unjust, evil is a way you could call it.
Not that people are inherently evil, but that the world itself, the rules of nature aren't really designed for like uh equity. Um what we would consider fairness, but we do have an understanding of fairness. Um, when I say that God's way is higher than ours is what we see as maybe unfair in that moment is without here's your word context.
>> Oh, it doesn't really count. It's got to be context about the Bible, but we'll get into it. Um, okay. Yeah. I would just say the the problem with that is it's it's also what's known as a thoughtstoppping cliche, right? So the times that I hear that his ways are higher the most is when I'm discussing things within scripture that God does that does not align with the idea of an allloving or all just God.
People will go with the well his understanding of love or justice is just above ours. But when we look at the things that this God does in the Bible, for instance, consistently condoning the owning of people as property. For instance, specifically telling um the Israelites to slay the Amalachite children and infants.
For example, him telling them to take the Midianite virgin girls as sex slaves. That does not comport with the idea of an allloving God. Unless you want to say that it is loving to slay infants, that it is loving to have slaves, and it is loving to force young girls into sexual slavery, which few Christians would say that those things are loving. Yet, they will come up with a way to justify those acts as loving when God does them.
Um, okay. So, I don't want to go through the minutia of each individual point just because I don't think it'll be productive. All I can say to that is I any one of those points if you want to go through it. Um, for example, the condoning of slavery. Um, you can look at an ancient world without bringing in religion to it. Slavery is an inevitability. not race-based slavery, just the kind of slavery where if you live in a world um like it's it's not really co countries, governments, it's just a bunch of warlords who are ruling over each other and they have to continuously gobble up other nations to maintain their own viability before they get gobbled up by another one. So, say you go in, you take another city, what do you do with all the people? You can't take them with you if they're military age fighting men because that's a bad idea. You can kick them all out of the city, but they will just die on the streets. So, you kind of It's not a good system. It's a horrible world, but there isn't another option other than to enslave or kill the defeated people. Uh all God does is set conditions on how you are to treat slaved in people. He doesn't condone it saying that's justified. And in the letter of Phylamon in the New Testament, he actively Paul tells them as a brother in Christ that you are not to have him as a slave and you are to set him free and you can directly no no no. That's not true.
That's not what Fiman says. Um he sends Fiman back to his master. Does not tell the master to set him free. Just says to treat him like a brother. Never specifically never specifically say >> I don't have to. He says he doesn't. And he specifically says I don't have to tell you to do this. I know because of the love within you that you will not take him back as a slave but as a brother in Christ.
>> No, he tells him to do it. Um but again >> he specifically says I am not slavery.
Okay, I guess we're gonna have to read it.
>> It's one page long. It's one literally one page letter.
>> Yeah, but like reading's so hard.
>> It's the worst part, ain't it?
>> You can directly track though the abolishment of slavery through the spread of Christianity. And largely that is because Europe became entirely Christianom. So they couldn't enslave each other anymore. But that's because there is a set practice from scripture that you are not to enslave other Christians. You're supposed to take them back as a brother in Christ.
>> For this reason, though I am more than bold enough in Christ to command you to do the right thing, yet I would rather appeal to you on the basis of love. Um I am appealing to you for my child um whose father I have become during my imprisonment.
Formerly he was useless to you. He is indeed useful to you and to me. I am sending him that is my own heart back to you. I wanted to keep him with me so that he might minister to me in your place during my imprisonment for the gospel. But I preferred to do nothing without your consent in order that your good deed might be voluntary and not something forced. Perhaps this is the reason he was separated for you from a while so that you might have him back for the long term. Um no longer as a slave but more than a slave, a beloved brother, especially to me. But how much more to you both in the flesh and the Lord >> specifically does not command him says I'm appealing to you out of love that you will treat him as a human because God does not just want people to follow the law. He wants a change in heart posture.
>> But I am sending him back and telling him how he should treat him. That that that's not just if he genuinely just hoped he would do it out of the goodness of his heart. He wouldn't say, "Well, I'm not going to tell you cuz I would hope you would do this." But, you know, >> he specifically prefaces it though with I could command this, but I won't.
>> Yeah, he's saying like he could force it. He's still he's still telling him to do it.
>> He's saying I trust that you won't. And he's giving the reason why. Again, the whole point is that it is supposed to be I mean, think about it. If you were an omnipotent being dealing with humans, as arrogant as they are, if you have to tell them not to enslave people, for them to not enslave people, something's gone horribly wrong in their heart. They should just not want to do that.
>> Okay, but he gives 600 plus laws. Why would he not make one of those laws don't own people?
>> Because the alternative is kill them all. Again, ancient world, there isn't another option.
>> It doesn't have to be if you were all powerful. there could be an infinite number of alternative options >> under the conditions that he set. And like if you want to go into the whole like Genesis, but the >> he's not constrained by any conditions.
He's all powerful.
>> He self- constrains himself to allow us to exist. If God was to exercise judgment against evil always, infinitimly, correctly, immediately, none of us could exist in the first.
>> I'm not saying he has to exercise judgment against evil. I'm saying he is all powerful. He could have created the universe in any number of ways that wouldn't have made the only two options death or enslavement. He specifically chose not to make the universe that way.
>> He specifically chose the universe in which you got to exist. Why are you why would we be upset about that?
>> Uh because it's the universe where slavery also existed slashexists.
>> Yeah, that's not his design. Genesis 1 makes it very clear.
>> That is his design. He is all knowing.
He knew precisely how if if you truly believe he is all knowing, >> then he knows >> everything that will ever happen in the universe and he designed it accordingly.
Knowing that and knowing that if he altered the universe a certain way, it would alter the course of those events.
But you wouldn't exist in that scenario.
>> Okay. If it took me never having existed for there to not be slavery ever. Hello. Goodbye.
>> So you would you would choose the non-existence of all humanity over any battle.
>> All humanity. No, I'm talking about me specifically.
>> Yeah. But when I mean you, I don't mean specifically you. I mean us. All humans fall short of the glory of God. All have sinned. If we live in a world where God perfectly executes sin or he never allows it to exist in the first place, we don't get to exist. So no humans get to go to heaven.
>> No humans get to exist in a world where either >> So no humans get to go to heaven.
>> They would never have existed in the first place.
>> So humans No, in our current universe, humans don't get to go to heaven.
>> No, they do.
>> Oh, but I thought you just said that humans couldn't exist in like a sinless world.
>> We did originally. That was the Again, I keep trying to say it and then you cut me off and which I it's totally fine. I cut people off all the time. But in Genesis 1, the whole point of it is that he's saying in the beginning, this was this and it was good and it was good and it was good and then humans and it was very good. This becomes very important into Genesis 3 when the fall happens.
The whole point is that this is not the original design. You are supposed to look at the world at death at suffering and go this is wrong. This is intuitively wrong. There's something in me that knows that this is not how it's supposed to be.
>> Hold on. Sorry. Um, YouTube mods, are you trying to tell Oh, I'm much louder than the caller. Okay, thank you for telling me.
Before it was the other way around. Is that better, YouTube? Give me just a second. Sorry, I'm trying to make sure I'm not blasting people's eardrums out.
>> No, you're good.
>> Tik Tok, is the volume level okay?
Okay, Tik Tok's good. Um, I'm so sorry that I've been blasting you guys' ear out. So, every single time in the past has always been that my mic was like way too low. Too low now. [ __ ] better happy medium.
Hello.
I turned it back up a little bit. Is it better turned back up?
Keep talking. I'm talking.
I'm getting my volume up. Hello. Hello.
You think it's okay now? It's better.
Little higher. Okay. Little higher.
A little bit more.
Is that good? There.
Just put it back. Well, this is very different than where it was before.
I appreciate you guys on TikTok having patience with me.
Well, if God's massager of meat says it sounds good, >> you know it's good.
>> I trust them with my life.
Too loud. I bumped it up like one decel.
I don't think I can I don't think I can make everybody happy here. Um, it seems like the most number of people are saying this is okay.
Um, sorry, strange chat.
Um, do not put it back to original. This is an improvement. Depends on guest volume.
All right, guest talk a little bit and we'll see if it it also is good for them.
>> Hello. Am I coming through loud and clear?
>> Is the guest coming loud enough?
Can it can people please tell me Tik Tok you guys too. Is the guest coming loud enough?
I can try to fix it so that the guest is coming louder, but I don't I don't know if I want to do that if it's already loud enough.
>> I'd be coming as loud as I can right now.
>> Uh you could put a little more effort into it.
>> I probably could.
>> Appropriate level. Okay. Okay. Caller sounds good. Yes. Okay. I think we're good to go. Uh, sorry about that.
Completely forgot where we were in the conversation. Um, >> I was going on a ram.
>> The way you could create the universe.
Um, >> um, specifically going back to Genesis, the original state was good and that you are supposed to intuitively understand that this is wrong. This is not supposed to be the way the world is supposed to act.
>> But isn't it made clear that when he when they eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, that's when they gain the knowledge of good and evil?
Um, in the default state, humans were neither good or bad. By our actions, our choices made us who we are. You're not inherently good or evil.
>> That's not what I'm I'm asking. Prior to eating the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, did humans have knowledge of good and evil?
>> It's what they do with it after the knowledge that matters. Actually, >> did they have the knowledge prior to eating the fruit?
>> That that's irrelevant. They they're not in trouble for >> relevant. Let's say okay you let's say it that's not the important that's not what God is mad about. What do what's the first thing they do after they eat the fruit? That becomes the problem.
That's the actual problem with sin. The first thing they do is they try to cover themselves up and hide their shame from God and hide from him directly. That is the problem with sin. It creates a natural desire to have separation with God.
So it's not the eating of the fruit that was the sin.
>> The eating of the fruit just made us aware of sin. Once we had sin, we started acting in accordance with an understanding of sin. That is where things started to go wrong.
>> Gotcha. Uh so it was just the fact that they wanted to wear clothes that was a sin.
>> No, it wasn't that they wanted to wear clothes. It's that they were naked in the garden originally. But here's the thing. We know that God was hanging. God was there. He didn't care about that.
That was never a problem. But once they became aware of their own sin, what they had done was wrong because they gave him a command, which they didn't know beforehand. But once they had awareness of what they had done, they immediately try to it's look, you can say it it's it's 100% literal or 100% figurative.
But I think there's an idea constantly going on through the Bible of trying to cover yourself up in a way that isn't what um in a way that hides you from God. And then the next thing they do is literally try and hide from God. Is essentially fixing it yourself and trying to hide from God is the natural result of a human with sin.
>> But what we're talking about is like is is the situation that God put them in even a a fair one?
>> God put them in a paradise where they had the apple that was their downfalling. But it begs the question, and this you may not agree with. This is you could argue is just apologetics. If you build a paradise and you do don't build an exit, is it a prison?
>> No, >> it is.
>> No.
>> If you can't leave, it's a prison.
You're being >> If it were If it were genuinely a paradise, then you would not be capable of the desire to leave.
>> That's an assumption that I don't think I'm willing to make. I think you can want I think that's the argument for people that say like I wouldn't want to be in heaven because I wouldn't want to be near God.
>> Can you leave heaven?
>> Um that's the outside actually.
>> That doesn't answer the question. Can you leave heaven?
>> There's not to go into a prison.
>> No. Like is it possible to leave heaven once you're there?
>> Heaven is everything that is not the prison.
Okay, that doesn't answer my question of whether or not you can leave it because by your standards, any any paradise you cannot leave is a prison. So, can you leave heaven? If not, then it must be a prison.
>> Anyone that you don't have the choice to?
You do have the choice to >> anyone that you don't have the choice to.
>> No, humans were originally, they didn't have a say in the mid creator.
>> That's just a nonsense sentence to what I asked. I asked, "Can you leave heaven?" And you said anyone that doesn't have the choice to >> No. Anyone who does have the choice.
>> Can they leave heaven?
>> They made the choice to go to heaven.
>> Can you tell me whether or not you can or cannot leave heaven?
>> I can, but I know where you're going to go with this. And I think it's already fundamentally misunderstanding what I'm trying to say here.
>> You said any paradise you cannot leave is a prison.
>> Yes. But the thing that makes it a prison isn't the fact that it's barred.
You're right. You're in a paradise. Why would you want to leave? It's the inability to make a choice.
>> Okay. So, can you choose to leave heaven?
>> You can choose to go to heaven.
>> Can you choose to leave heaven?
>> That is the choice. I didn't say a continuous choice.
>> So, you cannot once you have made the choice to be there, you cannot choose to leave. And that's not a prison.
No, because everything else that's like saying you get out of prison and then saying can I go back in my prison cell and saying no and then you're trapped on the outside of the prison.
>> Well, but if you're not allowed to leave then it's by your standard it is a prison. That is you set the standard.
You set the standard of any paradise you cannot leave is a prison. So >> I set the standard that any paradise you cannot leave and then I qualified it without a choice. That choice does not need to be a continuous forever choice.
>> A choice. Well, >> that choice it does not need to be continuous or >> you cannot choose to leave heaven.
>> You can choose to go there.
>> Okay.
>> Nobody's forcing you to go.
>> So your your ability to choose can be rescended and it's still not a prison.
Uh there's no I mean if you okay let's say yeah I mean I can't say for sure but if you go to heaven and you decide I don't want to be there I'm sure God will gladly send you to hell if that's >> gladly >> I mean if you don't want to be there >> think he would gladly send you to hell >> you know I'm being hyperbolic. Don't >> I'm just >> I'm just asking he's a sadistic [ __ ] in the Bible. He's not >> now vice.
The fact that he created hell in the first place is statistic.
>> If hell is viewed as a separation from God, it's exactly what people who want separation from him are getting.
>> Yeah, but he could also make a paradise where he's not there.
>> No, that's an oxymoron. I mean, it's a contradiction in and of itself. A paradise where he's not there is impossible. Paradise is synonymous to his existence. All kinds.
>> It could just have all of the good things minus his existence being there and it still be better than hell. It just needs to be better than like hell.
It could just be like the step below heaven where like has all the good parts except God's presence.
>> Yeah. But like doy still exists, you know?
>> Yeah. It could be it could be like heaven but you can [ __ ] >> It's heaven with doy.
>> You're saying all the good parts but without God. But God is all the good parts.
>> Is he the only good part to heaven? He's the only thing that is good. He's what is good is in the first place. Heaven itself could be a room. It could be a paradise. The point of heaven.
>> So heaven to you is a room that you sit in and look at God.
>> Come on, man. I'm mid conversation. Um, yeah, you're being really evasive and dishonest and just generally an intellectual coward, though. So, it's been a really shitty conversation. So, I thought I'd just kind of come in and see if we can keep you on track a little bit better.
>> I don't appreciate the rudess, dude. I'm not >> Hey, I'm just telling you how it is. If you don't appreciate honesty, I'm can't help you much.
>> Listen, it's okay. Fine. You know what?
It's It's irrelevant. Whatever. Um >> Yeah, you are.
>> Okay, dude. It's Damn.
>> I'm sorry. I'm not trying to I'm not trying to blame >> a little bit. Okay.
>> I really feel like I mean, I've been uh defending my argument, but I feel like I've been like pretty amicable, have I not? We may not disagree with each other, but I'm not like the last few people that have come up.
>> Your voice is pretty light.
>> Okay. I don't Okay, >> but you're being evasive like I said like repeatedly like how long did it take you to answer yes or no to whether you can leave heaven or not for instance >> I was trying to bring the clarification of the contingent fact that you need to have a choice no you cannot leave heaven if you want to believe that you can leave heaven if you don't want to be there then fine that doesn't really affect my position >> okay >> but I could see where it was going and I needed to make that clarification because I didn't want it to get misconstrued that's not me being evasive I'm trying to clarify conversations are messy This isn't a formal, >> but typically you answer a question and then you go on to clarify afterwards so people are assured that you're staying on track. Otherwise, they think you're evasive.
>> Hey, it's a misunderstanding. This isn't a formal debate. This is a Tik Tok live, >> right? I think you're just avoiding a topic you did bring your >> My bad. No, no, I'm not trying to to discredit your platform. Very formal, very demeure.
We are very serious around here and the insinuation that we are not is honestly a little heartbreaking to me. Um >> you're right. You're right. I >> just if we could really just respect the medium here.
>> Um >> yeah, absolutely.
>> I think that would be more amicable for everybody.
um as a seance.
>> Um listen, I I again going into the weeds, I obviously don't think I can convert you there. It would take way too long and probably like actual sources in front of me to make better arguments. Um I would because I'm not going to bug you guys on that. I'm going to let you go. Um I'm going to pray for you. I'm sorry if you don't want that. And I'm not even going to pray for you to convert. I'm just going to pray for you to have joy and success and prosperity in your life. Um, >> can you pray for my kids to get bigger?
>> If that's what you want, I will pray for the surgery to be successful. But, um, >> just natural miracle.
>> That may be asking a lot, but let me see what I can do.
>> Okay, that's the only prayer that I consent to.
>> I would plead with you, not out of any like trying to just win an argument. Go through for the book again. Try to just read it with an open eyes. I know it's not going to convert you, but I I do think it is the richest philosophical piece of text over the last 2,000 years.
There's a reason we're still arguing over about it is not as simplistic as he's an evil god. And I think that's a discredit to thousands of years of historical data about this in research in conversations um that in billions of people who have given their life to this. I'm not trying to say that you're going to come to conclusions. I am. But I just don't want you to miss out on something that I genuinely you promise to give the Book of Mormon, the Quran, the all of those the same consideration.
>> You can throw that up if you want. I'm not trying to come from the point of view of I know I've read every single text. I'm telling you what's personal to me. This wasn't I can convert you from atheism to religion in general. I'm coming from my point of view.
If you want to read all those two, yeah, I suggest it. But there's validity in reading the Bible. And again, it is one of the it is one of the most debated historical texts of all time for a reason by some of the smartest human beings alive >> and of all history. Isaac Newton, I mean, I'm I'm not going to go into a ramble about it, but to just say that it's an evil, sadistic god is not giving that book enough credit. And I do believe you're smart enough to know that.
>> Isaac Newton never knew what like a light bulb was, right? So we can say they're the smartest people of their time.
>> We can say that they were smart at the time. We've learned a lot more now.
So the smartest people now know a lot more than the smartest people then.
>> Don't take that Isaac Newton line as the main takeaway from that ramble. Listen, >> I don't remember anything else you said except Isaac Newton.
>> Fair enough. Hey, listen. I will pray for you regardless. I hope you have a blessed night and a great rest of your life.
>> All right. Tell them e-cups.
>> When it it's just funny when it comes to the Bible, it's it's, you know, not quite the document they always seem to think it is. It's not univocal. Every author of the Bible talks about God differently. It's the source of most of the problems in it.
>> Oh, well, >> someone in the chat said, "Ribbit goat."
>> Where? Where? No, no horns tonight.
>> Oh, babe. Uh, no, the horns. I'll I'll talk about it later. Um, but also thanks for spoiling that.
>> Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize it was a >> welcome on. Uh, whatever you have to say, say it to Rat Soup.
>> Damn it. I was really hoping to address the last person, but I do have a question for Rat Soup.
>> Yeah. Now my understanding is that uh Noah only had one wife but because of certain uh publication uh differences sometimes uh I believe that one was named Sarai and I but then there was one before and I can't recall what her name is or was excuse me but my understanding is that she was actually quite a big proponent of believing in God just in case. Do you have a similar understanding?
>> Uh uh no no I I don't I don't think I do. What would you call her?
>> My understanding is that she is that she maybe was a gambler. Um or was into gambling. Um but again, I can't recall her name, but it wasn't Sarai. Um but it was something about like believing in God just just to be careful. Wasn't Sarai. I I [ __ ] I think it might have been the the past gal's wager.
>> Oh, so his his past gal made the wager.
Yeah.
Uh, I was wondering how it was going to come in there. I did not see I was genuinely fishing for the word Pascal the whole time because I could not get it. Like it was on the tip of my tongue and I could not think of it.
>> I knew it was going to happen. I I knew it was going to happen.
>> It's get it because it's it's Noah's past wife. It's his past gal. Past cow's wager. His past gal's wager.
>> Past gals's wager.
>> It was a good joke. It was a really good joke. All right, I'm gonna get going.
>> Bye >> bye.
>> Um, a couple people were asking where they could get a hat like this. Um, I am going to be doing a monthly raffle the start of each month I'll draw for the previous one where anyone who does a call streaming shift for me gets entered into a raffle to win a crochet piece.
And this exact hat design is one of the options as well as the strawberry hat. So, you get to pick and choose which option you want me to crochet for you, but you can get one for free that I'll make myself for you. Uh, if you're interested, details are in the Discord.
You can fill out the interest link to be a call screener. Uh, basically all you do is just make sure that the people who are coming in aren't gonna be terrible people on my stream.
Hate that we have to have those security measures in place, but uh, seems to be necessary.
Hey, Dalton, I'm glad you like the frog hat.
seeing some interesting interesting uh conversations happening in here. I don't if you want me to make Cam Strawberry hat, I will do it. Which Discord? Uh mine, the Bionic Barnyard. Uh you can check the link tree. Uh that is in a certain bio. I don't know if I can even say that word anymore. Uh, but if you check that out, you'll find the Discord and you'll also find the interest form. Um, so that will be nice. I just did a little wave dance. You can't really see outside of my shoulders. Um, but it was like really good. Um, so yeah, the Bionic Barnard.
What is up, >> people?
>> What? Huh? What? Hi. I just got I just got here. You make hats for people?
>> I not always, but I would make one for you and Cam.
>> I will. You know what? I'll I'll message her. I bet she'd love a strawberry hat.
She'd love strawberries.
>> Do it. I'll do it.
>> Yeah, we'll do. I'll message you about that. And you know what? I'll I'll pay you well for it, too, because craftsmanship like that deserves comp fair compensation.
>> I was just going to do it, but I appreciate that.
>> Yeah. Everyone like and subscribe to Robot Co and stuff. Okay, that's it.
>> Hey, look at that. A a sparkling endorsement from the Bible Guy. Thank you for coming on, Dalton. Discord link expired.
It should not be. I updated it recently.
Let me make sure real quick.
Yeah. No, it's it should be infinite.
You might have to uh copy and paste it into a browser if you're on mobile. That does happen. Uh well, we have one more person. Oh, nose lines. Yes, I am so excited to wear that dress. I do want to do it though. I on a day where it is nice outside so I can get good pictures and I can come on like a full hair makeup look from taking pictures in it. But Noah's Lions, you guys made me this gorgeous dress. Uh so I am so [ __ ] excited to wear that sometime soon for you guys.
Welcome. And can I get your name, age, and pronouns?
you. We can't hear you when you're like outside the app.
You were waiting in here for a while.
Oh, all right.
I was just about to close out the stream. Did you have something you wanted to say?
>> There is nothing in my hands. Nothing in my hands. Do you see my hands?
>> You going to do it with your toes, [ __ ] >> No. I'm No. And I'm not showing you the freedom of my toes.
>> I don't want to see them. I just want assurance that you're not going to use them for evil.
>> I will not use them for you know what? No. I will not use my toes for evil. I will give you the the the the the solidarity in that and and the confidence in that that I will not use my toes for eold.
>> Okay, I believe you for now.
>> No, I I just came in cuz uh cuz Dis went live and he's not accepting my live request on bothering my other friends because I stopped being live.
>> Well, I >> I went live for a little bit.
>> Well, I'm finishing up right now. So, unfortunately, there's not much for for you to say or do. Uh, so you're just here to to terrorize me. Oh, I can show you though that this I got this at Renfair today. They were like handmaking them.
>> Oh [ __ ] >> In the booth. So these are all handmade.
>> This is Marshall. And he's got little wings, too.
>> Oh, hell yeah. My mom was going to go to Renfair and then my [ __ ] god, my stepdad.
>> Okay, >> he happened.
>> Okay, >> I don't think I need to say much more than that.
Well, thank you for being up here. Um, I'll talk to you later.
>> Okay. Byebye.
>> Bye.
All right. Well, that is going to wrap up for tonight. Uh, oh, for the people who made this, uh, they have a website.
It's Bast's Garden, but their Etsy page is like currently shut down, so they don't really have anything online at the moment. But if you're new here and you have not yet followed, make sure you follow me before I end the stream, or else you may never find me again. Um, and that would be sad for both of us.
Um, if you are on YouTube and you are not subbed yet, you're missing out on quality content, obvious obviously. Uh, because next stream I'm going to have e-cups. I I have it on good faith. Um, so tomorrow I will be first guesting on Mezzo's Atheist Sunday School stream and then I will have my aftershow stream for Atheist Sunday School aka Ask for Ass.
Uh, so make sure to tune in tomorrow starting at I want to say it's 8 Pacific somewhere. I don't know, somewhere in there. Um, I'll be on Mezo stream, then I'll be on my own stream. Uh, so look out for that. Uh, join the Discord if you haven't already. Big thank you to my mods for, uh, helping keep chat sane tonight. Uh, you guys are have a lot of work to do over on YouTube, so I appreciate that. Uh, Tik Tok, and like usual, you're going to be the first to go. Bye.
All right, Tik Tok is gone. So if you guys have any last minute [ __ ] you want to talk about, Tik Tok, uh, now's the time to do it, right? So if you want to be like, "Oh, Tik Tok, what? They got no attention span. It's just Coco Melon for adults."
I'm not encouraging that, but I would allow it.
Okay. No, that's too much. That's
関連おすすめ
BSA Goldstar - I gave up! And why animals beat humans!
thebingleywheeler
102 views•2026-05-31
The 'Islamic dilemma': Quran tells Christians to judge by the Gospel
canceledkings
1K views•2026-05-29
3 Dreams That Changed Philosophy Forever
mommyplus24
731 views•2026-05-31
don't put shein's responsibility onto individuals #shein #neoliberalism
ScintillaePod
231 views•2026-05-30
Seneca - Escape The Crowd, Find Your Inner Peace!
realfreewisdom
114 views•2026-05-29
Scholar Explains: WHAT IS A GNOSTIC?
fightbackpodcast
965 views•2026-05-31
Fulton Sheen: A Mente Tenta se Manter Jovem para não Sofrer com os Impactos do Tempo
SantoCotidiano-port
673 views•2026-05-29
When They Ignore You, Do This Instead | Stoicism
ZenithWisdom-e3k
615 views•2026-05-31
