POST-DEBATE STREAM vs. Gnostic informant; Orthobros vs. anti-islamianity??! Chillstream...

Added: 2026-05-15

[00:00:16]Rising flames of heaven.

[00:00:21]Thunder shakes the earth.

[00:00:26]Voices of the martyr's call. The dawn of the church is burn.

[00:00:56]From Jerusalem streets, a flame ignites in the hearts of men. Peter's voice bold, unbroken. Preaching the word again and again. From Pentecost, the spirit descends. A torrening of power to lose and bind. The lame shall walk, the blind shall see. The light of Christ for all mankind.

[00:01:22]GLORY FOR THE RIGHTEOUS, the faithful sail. The gates of Hades will not prevail through trials and heresies.

[00:01:30]Triumph over lies. The orthodox succeed to heretics demise. The truth of the word continues to rise.

[00:01:44]Oh, the Aryans rise with corrupt decree denying the sun. So bad seed homosios the banner unfurled. Alexander Aanius teach the world. Unorious Macedonia sted by doubt. Constantinople cast all of them out. The capital rose to fight.

[00:02:15]Trinity 3 in one. Let there be light.

[00:02:20]Glory for the righteous. The faithful sail. The gates of Hades will not prevail through trials and heresies.

[00:02:28]Triumph for the lies. The orthodox succeed to heretics demise. The truth of the word continues to rise.

[00:02:48]Netorious seeks to divide the Lord, but serial STANDS WITH STRENGTH RESTORED.

[00:02:53]ONE PERSON OF CHRIST, the ootokco's crown. The voice of truth shall resound to nature's divine and man in Christ united the eternal plan. Leo's to the faithful cheer. The church stands strong forever clear.

[00:03:11]GLORY FOR THE RIGHTEOUS, THE FAITHFUL SAIL. THE GATES OF HADES WILL NOT PREVAIL THROUGH TRIALS AND HERESIES.

[00:03:19]TRIUMPH FOR THE LIES. The orthodox succeeded to heretics demise. The truth of the word continues to rise.

[00:03:42]False teachings sway the unfaithful. The Jillious repents and is grateful. Christ has two wills and two energies. Maximos and atho eternal memory icons raise the faithful sing. The image of Christ the holy thing. Honor the saints. The faithful siege unde holy orthodoxy through fire and trial, persecution and flame. The orthodox church marches on in Jesus name. Martyrs and fathers, voices of might, defenders of truth, uncreated life.

[00:04:27]Glory for THE RIGHTEOUS, THE FAITHFUL SAIL. THE GATES OF HADES WILL NOT PREVAIL THROUGH TRIALS AND HERESIES.

[00:04:35]Triumph over lies. The orthodox succeed to heretics demise. The truth of the word continues to rise.

[00:05:07]continues to rise.

[00:05:21]Yo, what's up everybody? Welcome to the postdebate stream. Dude, I haven't streamed in a minute because I was like preparing for this debate, dude. I was like, so like almost headcasing about it too much because I'm like, it seems like an easy prompt. Like, does he have some like ace up his sleeve that I don't know about, but hey, great job, Alex. Thank you, man. Uh, Shane Paisio, stellar performance. Calm, cool, calm, collected. Thank you. Great job, Alex.

[00:05:48]Huge dub. Thank you. That's the ridge again. Thank you. Just got the chills.

[00:05:53]Uh Casey Rudd TV, the ortho mean angle was gloriously defeated tonight.

[00:05:57]Respectable debate. W can I be honest?

[00:06:00]It's pretty hard to be like mean at Neil cuz he's there's like I don't know.

[00:06:05]There's something so endearing and like kind of honest about him and like multiple times he said that there are two reference there. So I mean that that's isn't that like the end of the debate? Well, you guys know that I like to bring on, you know, the folks that like kind of help me prep for for each debate to kind of get their take on things. Today, I have a special guest who goes by none other than the name of Chase Haggard.

[00:06:31]You're muted. Well, what's up, dude?

[00:06:33]Thanks. Uh, thanks for coming on.

[00:06:34]>> Yeah, they're gonna have to super chat to mute me again now that I've unmuted.

[00:06:38]So, that's that's your bad, Alex. Um, great job, man.

[00:06:41]>> Yeah, thank you. And also, thanks to Neil Agnostic informant for agreeing.

[00:06:45]And it's Jim Bob who hosted. I saw a few questions in the chat here that were like, "Really? Jim Bob is the real winner." That's right. Thanks, Snowquilter. I appreciate it. I cannot agree on the W for Alex. Clearly, Jim Bob won the debate. Well, I mean, Chase uh Chase helped me a lot. And then like going into it, I was like, man, I kind of overprepared in a way. Like I mean, what what were your impressions overall?

[00:07:10]>> I thought I thought it was great. And um I agree with you about Neil. Like I've interacted with him a handful of times like Jim Bob's Discord a panel show and stuff and Neil like I disagree with his positions. I think they're goofy but the toughest thing about it is like I would have fun we just have fun getting a beer and just joking around and talking about whatever you know like Neil is a very likable dude. Um but yeah multiple times I heard him concede to the debate >> and then go back to you know well no but it is the same reference. It's just it's all over the place. It's It was all over the place.

[00:07:44]>> It was like with the first hypothetical when he was like, "Well, the Muslim would not say that Jesus on the on the cross is God." I was like, "All right, well, I have 14 and a half more minutes of cross examination." Like, now what what else do I have to do now?

[00:07:56]>> Would you like to repeat that for 14 minutes, please?

[00:08:00]>> Yeah, it's Jesus is not God for the Muslims. So, that's a different reference. Yes, there are two reference.

[00:08:07]And and what was interesting was um I remember uh when we were chatting the other day, I was saying like I he'll probably try to divorce the theological from the causal chain.

[00:08:19]>> Yeah.

[00:08:20]>> Maybe maybe you can explain that for the audience real quick. I tried to I tried to to simplify it a bit in my opening, but like what do you mean when you're talking about like a causal chain of reference, right? That was part of my argument is that like hey there's a historical chain there are certain breaks and there are certain events that like fix the reference like fix a meaning to a term right uh can you like explain that and like explain like on live for the audience >> so um we encounter um let's say like one of my one of my speakers right that I use for work we encounter one of these speakers um and I say that's that's speaker A I Krypkkey would argue Saul Krypkkey um would argue okay he just baptized that term to that reference right and now I can be talking about speaker A and I just have two speakers here let's say the camera >> and that like that baptism of a term is it's almost always like an event right so it's like you pointed to that thing and you said that's speaker A right >> yes yes that's that's speaker A and let's say that um let's say that my camera is reversed or something like that right or no you don't see me at all. And I'm like, "Oh, speaker A is having some issues, right? Speaker B is good, though." You come over, right? And you're like, "Oh, how's how's speaker A?" And you point to what I call speaker B, right? Well, okay, you're intending now to reference what I called speaker A. So, even though your intent is wrong, I could say, well, no, he is still referring to speaker A even though he pointed to the wrong speaker. Um, I could be I could say that, right?

[00:09:59]>> And Krypky even argued um gave counter arguments. Krypky was really >> like there like he's he's still missing the reference, right? Like he's he's he intends the right thing, but he's actually referring to another thing.

[00:10:14]>> Yeah. But in the conversation, we're still talking about >> the same thing.

[00:10:18]>> The same thing because of that causal chain, right? It didn't like drift super far, right? and and Krypky argued and he he had some example where he was smart where he was like look I think like this is a good like theory of reference but he was smart where he goes I don't think it's always going to hold >> and that's typically >> like Augustine at the end of day trinitate he's like but if anything disagrees with the church you know of course you know a little ta >> clause exa exactly but um but he gave like the the example of a pet I forgot what pet he used I think it was like an like a arvark or something like that and um one one of these pets that is uh is totally made up. It doesn't exist. Um uh and he was and he used the Napoleon example and he's like well in that case when I say Napoleon Bonapart you know it's drifted so far and that causal chain broke so clearly and then there was someone responding to Cryky that used the Madagascar example that I gave of um >> you know it it Marco Polo heard it and people on the African mainland were referring to the African mainland as Madagascar but he thought it was the island off the coast and so now when I say it, what matters? Well, it's going to have to be intent there, right? And you can also use the properties, the location, all this. But just saying God of Abraham, they worship the God of Abraham. Well, you can't divorce what that God is and what that reference is fixing from the history, right? You can't divorce the theology from the history. It's like saying, "Well, I'm going to I'm going to show you Madagascar." And he and he had Neil had said when I asked him that question, he goes, "Well, we're both talking about Madagascar. We've proven it's Madagascar."

[00:12:00]No, we would have to go, "Where is it located?" Right.

[00:12:03]>> Yeah. I think that was that kind of caught me off guard was like, >> "Of course we're going to talk about theology because that's how you identify what they mean by God." Like, >> yes. H >> how are you not going to? So it was like it kind of caught me by surprise when he objected kind of objected to appealing to theology and he's like well now we're talking about descriptions and I was like yes that's part of identifying something. It's like there's there's like a point like a sliding scale like we talked about where like eventually the description changes so much that you can't say this is the same thing anymore. This is like that verification principle, right? And and when you when you when typically like all the examples he gave were empirical attempted analogies were empirical verifications, right? We're looking at the same painting. Well, first off, that analogy doesn't work for this debate >> because what's in question is are we looking at the same thing? Um >> but the M Muslims explicitly reject Christ the empirical verification principle who also says I am the God of Abraham and what these other people say the God of Abraham is that's not me and it's you that's why you can't we you know as orthodox there's no like oh what what theory of reference of linguistic theory of reference do you use? Well, it's like saying, "Okay, well, I'm always >> Jesus, dude. It's Jesus."

[00:13:32]>> But but it's like it's just it's a nonsensical question for when you really think about it. It's like, "Well, it depends, right?" Like that's saying it's like saying, "How do you verify something's true?" Well, what do we are we talking about measuring temperature?

[00:13:45]Are we talking about math? Right? And uh I just don't Neil seemed to kind of give up and I don't think he wanted to just admit it which I get but it does seem like he gave up. I I did get a little bit of that sense there. Yeah. So where it's like at one point he was saying like well it's the address that matters like the temp the second temple and I was like are are you like are you literally saying like the address? And then I I I realized at one point I thought he was literally saying like the address >> like the location of the >> I'm sorry there was no mailboxing but yeah I mean I get where he's like okay it's it's that you know he's like oh well it's just historical we can remove our biases.

[00:14:30]No all you're doing is saying there is a historical term that I can go and try to uh neutrally interpret history which you can't do. I'm not saying that you can't come to truths about history and typically that is going to be through um consensus archaeological data as well as oral traditions, right? But you you you can't just say um okay well uh they claim it's the God of Abraham and now anytime you say God of Abraham you mean the same thing. It's just it's a huge leap and you you can't it just doesn't it just doesn't make sense. I don't know what else to say. The Sanhoa Savage Sanjo Savage. Great job, Alex. You were both excellent interlocks. You were just better. Thank you. How do we know we're not accidentally referring to the right Neil? Ah, kidding. Thanks for the 10 bucks, San Ho Savage. I feel like it's been a minute since I got to my soundboard, but you guys know what I've been into lately for the soundboard stuff.

[00:15:30]>> How do I monetize these people? You know what I mean?

[00:15:32]>> How do I monetize these people?

[00:15:35]>> I wish I could hear you. What is my bank account going to look like in the next two to three years? I need I need seven figures. I need I need I need seven figures.

[00:15:41]>> I need seven figures.

[00:15:44]>> I wish you could hear it.

[00:15:46]>> You can't hear it.

[00:15:47]>> No, I'm gonna have to super chat, I guess.

[00:15:48]>> Must be cuz like you're on your phone or something. But uh yeah, Nikolai says, "Insane stuff. Good job, Alex." Thank you. Sue is still undefeated. Thank you.

[00:15:58]Uh Alex, are you going to debate JP Uncut on Intercession of the Saints or is he still running? I have a confession. I have to respond to modern day debates. I have been a little preoccupied with preparing my slides and my opening and hanging out with my family and you know making money in my job that uh you know I I have to get back to him still. I'll probably just do that before I go to bed tonight. But it's as far as I know it's still on the table. I just need to confirm a date. So yeah. So this baptism of names and like this historical chain for a Christian like if we're applying Krypky's theory like the way I was looking at it was where we say like the the reference of God is fixed to Christ. I mean we could say that from Genesis at the very beginning. I was willing to concede that for purposes of the debate and just be like, look, >> sure, we can argue it throughout the Old Testament, but at the very least, there is some historical cause, like some intervening, superseding cause in the incarnation that you can't really avoid.

[00:17:04]And they seem to not really care about that. And I was like, "But don't you think that there's some sort of like break in the chain, some sort of intervening, superseding cause with the prophet Muhammad who like when he literally reccons the Old Testament and the New Testament, denies the divinity of Christ, like all these important doctrines that have to do with who God is, like I mean, would that be like the Christian equivalent of that?"

[00:17:31]>> Yeah. I mean, I would I would actually say that um the you know, some people get tripped up when they hear this, but like you know, um Abraham empirically experienced God. He empirically experienced Christ, right? And God God's energies were present through the sacrifices in the temple, right? And people doing that it's like no those people actively doing that I can say yes their reference is fixed the people who God has revealed are the prophets right and the old testament saints god has revealed yes they worshiped me they participated with me on an individual level I can't say you know that right now when you say when you say god for sure I can guarantee that you mean the orthodox god well I know you ascribe to these things, right?

[00:18:27]Mentally you could it could like drift, but at the end of the day, empirically, we believe like you said, we participate in the Eucharist.

[00:18:36]>> Yeah.

[00:18:37]>> Confession, all the sacraments, right?

[00:18:39]And we directly participate with God.

[00:18:42]And so I, you know, I can say that it's an empirical thing and some people may get tripped up by that. Empirical meaning just it's direct experience, you know. Yeah. So I I I I think we could say that, but I want to never take a strict secular theory of reference ever.

[00:18:58]Like we don't fit we don't neatly fit into any of those boxes. We're orthodox.

[00:19:01]>> Yeah. Yeah. That's right. At the end of the day, it is like as St. Daniel Loy says, the experience of God, right?

[00:19:09]>> Yep. Yep.

[00:19:10]>> Yeah. And I think uh I wonder do you think that for like the Old Testament uh Jews like and prior to the incarnation like these faithful second temple Jews that you know they were like their doctrine of God was a little mushy right like the trinity of course was revealed to certain people like Abraham Moses but it was also hidden that it was God's plan to to have the incarnation >> so like would you say that for the second temple Jew it's not as important for like prior to the incarnation that it's not as important for them to you know acknowledge distinctions in God and that like oh now their sacrifice is like missing the reference because you know their neighbor believes in memora theology but they're not so >> no no we're getting we're getting away from like you said it's like no what like what what is um you know what is the point of of creation what's the point of man being created it's theosis right >> so that we out of God's love. God chose to go, I'm going to create these beings.

[00:20:12]They can have a relationship with me and it's on such a deep level. And we obviously don't ever become divine by nature. Um but we become divine through participating with God's energies. I that is direct empirical experience. So these Old Testament Jews that were wor worshiping God, worshiping God the way they were um they were taught to worship with with the sacrifices.

[00:20:40]There is a causal chain of Adam and Eve telling Noah, Seth, you know, tell telling all all their children about how to worship God.

[00:20:53]That going through the Old Testament, that's a causal chain. and then empirically they're experiencing God in their worship. So, it's not it's not just outside of the liturgy. There has to be um there has to be a way to say you're not in anything. There has to be a way to say you're not referencing the same um uh you're not signifying the same reference without being able to point to an empirical thing, right? Like numbers.

[00:21:19]How can we Okay. What is what what is 4 plus 4? It's eight, right? Okay. Um is uh is it nine? No. Well, what is nine? 9 is 1 plus 8. I know this sounds autistic, but and 9 is 1 - 10 or 10 - 1.

[00:21:35]Sorry, I'm a little tired. Um, if you drift too far from that, you're not referencing the same like abstract system. I'm not saying God's an abstract system. If you don't do that and there's no way to ever get something to reference the wrong thing when you use the same term, you end up in a linguistic monism where you can't ever refer to the incorrect thing and it everything collapses. But >> yeah, I think that ended up being a huge problem with like Doerty in his discussion with Father Deacon and Jay is that like if I remember correctly, he more or less conceded that you can't like miss the reference, you know, as long as you're talking about, you know, the the God of Abraham, which in my mind is like that's that's pretty crazy >> because you see, think about the cost >> historical events. Yeah.

[00:22:22]>> Think about the cost of that of like, okay, um there's just it it just everything will break down. It's like, no, you're always referring to the truth of the matter no matter what, you know.

[00:22:31]Um, but yeah, there there has to be. It doesn't make sense when you don't have an empirical verification principle which for the Old Testament Jews right there's a causal chain there the oral tradition >> and that helps fix right the uh the reference the intent of their will to hit the same reference >> and then they are directly experiencing God in a totally different way obviously and not as intimately as we get to through the Eucharist right >> but yeah we would say I would say and I think father anas would agree yeah we empirically experience God. It's not under a microscope, but we directly experience God.

[00:23:06]>> Yeah. Uh there was like I don't know something that I kind of stumbled across in the open discussion that I want to think about a little more, but maybe like your take on it where I asked him like for us the Eucharist like eating God is like the highest form of like communion and worship with God, right?

[00:23:24]Uh for a Muslim, I'm I'm pretty sure that would be sherk.

[00:23:29]I'm pretty sure it would be which is like the worst sin ever.

[00:23:32]>> Mhm. It seems like it's impossible to have the same reference when like you're worshiping him in the highest sense with the Eucharist and then committing the worst sin against him possible, right?

[00:23:49]Well, I I would agree in a sense, right?

[00:23:53]But I think there there is absolutely ways where you know you can be you can be referring like the hooded man paradox right that we talked about where you have >> okay so referring let's say the the prompt of the debate that Muslims and Christians both worship the same >> yeah they they are and he and he he shifted away from the positive to they could be yeah no and and and worship I agree you know with your opening of it's like no no no worship is going to be um ritualistic obviously.

[00:24:27]>> Yeah.

[00:24:28]>> Nec necessarily. And um the thing that they're both claiming with the term not the reference the signifier the same signifier the god of is of Abraham right the god of Israel um >> prescribed worship a certain way.

[00:24:47]Well, if we say that the the person the thing prescribed different things, that is a point towards yeah, it's it's it could not be the same reference. It doesn't guarantee that it that it isn't yet, right? I think you need more the essential attributes and a causal chain to go like yeah they're not because the essential attributes I think the second you get to contradictory essential attributes of the thing actual attributes not perceived ones >> you can't be uh referring to the same reference >> you know like >> yeah you kind of gloss over that part of my opening statement where I was like >> they're literally not the same like if you just look at them and like the essential attributes just like laid out like they're literally not just by the law of identity, right? Yeah. And I'm curious cuz I um cuz I caught the entire last hour and a half before I called in, but I missed I I saw the opening statement and then I had I was at the a car shop and stuck there. It was such a pain in the butt. But did he ever besides saying they both say it's the God of Abraham, the God of Israel?

[00:26:07]Besides that, did he ever give any positive case for it being the same God?

[00:26:12]Besides saying, well, we have manuscripts saying that people in this place referred to a deity called this.

[00:26:20]Uh it was just that we know that there was one God Yahweh worshiped in the temple and that everybody's referring to this god Yahweh that was worshiped in the temple. I made the point eventually I was like well you know uh Antioch came in there he sacrificed the pig on the altar and worshiped Zeus in the temple.

[00:26:38]Does that mean Zeus and Yahweh are the same god? And he was like well no people in the chat are asking where's the debate. So it's on Jim Bob's channel.

[00:26:45]It's uh Christians and Muslims same God.

[00:26:47]I debated Gnostic informant on Jim Bob's channel. So >> Jim Bob did a good job moderating everything I saw too. He didn't, you know, he just let you guys kind of go at it.

[00:26:56]>> Yeah. Yeah. And uh I mean Neil was very agreeable I think with the debate. So I mean it's not like it's not like there was too much chaos. But Melo says I should have brought up Nab and Abaiu.

[00:27:09]Why? Because their worship was improper and God didn't not accept it. So then >> that doesn't answer the question yet though.

[00:27:17]>> That doesn't fully, you know, like I agree and Mel is a really smart dude despite being Australian. He I do kind of consider him a person. Um no, he's great. Uh but I don't think that doesn't that doesn't answer answer the question of is it the same reference, >> right? It can be a part of that question, but that's that's all it comes down to is how you are positively saying yes, they are. How how do you verify that when they have contradictory essential attributes? Um though they both use the term the God the God of Abraham because if if that's all that is, I mean, okay, suppose um suppose a couple has twins, right? And they name them Chase and Alex, right? And then that couple mixes up the names between them and the one known as Chase is now they now call Alex and the one known as Alex they now call Chase and the whole community around them learns their names as that.

[00:28:23]Well, that breaks the chain initially of referring to Chase and Alex, doesn't it?

[00:28:31]>> How can I? And and the only empirical verification principle of knowing you're doing the same thing is gonna be describing them. And if they're say they're identical twins, you'd have to point to them be here this one. It's just I don't think he actually made a case besides asserting it.

[00:28:54]>> Yeah, I agree.

[00:28:57]We got uh Octaven, thank you for the six months, man. He was using historical evidence. Abraham as evidence but declined Alex's historical evidence.

[00:29:06]Well, yeah. His thing was like, well, they all worship the God of Abraham. And I was like, "Yeah, but you can't stop there, dude." Like, at the very least, you got to say that like, well, they believe Jesus is God. You know, Christians believe Jesus is God. That seems to like for us that's in continuity. You'd say the Jews, you know, they had their own event like whenever they ended up rejecting like officially Jesus as God. So that's like whatever 200s 400s between the two and 400s somewhere I I imagine. And for the Muslims they just they have a totally different revelation, right? We would I would I would speculate that the revelation came from like a demon, right? So that's like a totally different source. It's a totally different historical cause for whatever meaning they attach to the word God, right? It's it's all different different things that they're talking about because fundamentally the Christian identification of God is like like you said it's experienced and it's in Christ. Um but for all of these other sects I guess worldviews, belief systems, it's not in Christ.

[00:30:15]>> Yep. Yep. And and I just don't know what more I I can I can even say because I'll just repeat myself a million times.

[00:30:24]>> Yeah.

[00:30:26]It's just I mean there's no the there's no way to say it's the same reference just based purely on history and the history the historical oral transmission that causal chain >> what's in question is the content that's being transmitted >> it's not even if I we grant that there is a oral tradition directly which I wouldn't grant that directly from >> old testament Jews through to Christians through to Muslims, the same one without it already being broken. And the second it gets to Muhammad, it's the the essential attributes, the very history of their idea of the causal chain changes and and they deny parts of the history now, too.

[00:31:15]>> Yeah. It just >> Well, it's a huge reccon, right?

[00:31:19]>> Yes.

[00:31:19]>> Yeah. But thanks, Jim Bob, for good to see you in the chat, man. great moderation. I really enjoyed the debate.

[00:31:25]Thanks for setting that up with Neil.

[00:31:26]You know, he's a a huge channel, so I I appreciate the opportunity to uh to have a debate with somebody like that.

[00:31:32]Interesting prompt, too. You know, ended up learning uh learning a lot about, you know, philosophy from Chase here.

[00:31:40]Somebody in the chat said at one point it's like, "Who is Chase?" You guys don't know who Chase is? Hold on. Chase is an OG.

[00:31:46]>> I'm a I'm a Z-listister quote unquote OG. I like to help behind the scenes and stuff. He's behind the scenes, but he's an OG. He's a philosophy enthusiast.

[00:31:55]Chase, tell them tell them who you are.

[00:31:58]>> Yeah, I'm Chase Haggard. I'm a nerd. I'm a >> mix engineer. And then that's that's it.

[00:32:03]I'm a That's it. Um, but yeah. No, I I thought I thought you did you did great.

[00:32:09]And it's like the funny thing is it's like you you you know, intuitively everything you want to do is right. And it's funny because it's like, okay, we talked about and I brought up like more nerdy like phil linguistic philosophy stuff which you just haven't hadn't spent your time doing a bunch of cuz like you can't spend your time doing everything.

[00:32:28]>> Chase was talking about he's like cry this and frag that. And I was like I don't know who these people are.

[00:32:35]>> Well and nobody nobody's it's like oh yeah you need to know everything about everything. It's like, yeah, nobody can do that. But um but it's funny because >> you just >> it's intuitively so dumb. Like you know it's intuitively so dumb and you didn't need any you didn't need really any of it. But it's good to like know but it's just funny.

[00:32:51]>> You have a framework to work off of.

[00:32:52]Yeah.

[00:32:53]>> But you like it's just funny cuz it's like Yeah. It's like now I'm not saying Neil's dumb. I think his position is really stupid obviously. But um the position is just so dumb that it's like I don't even know how many how many more times to go through to go through it.

[00:33:08]>> Yeah, it's it's a hard one to defend. So kudos to the valiant effort. But I think it's just like there are too many factors working against him there for sure.

[00:33:18]>> Yeah. And when you have a stripe pinstripe suit, it's just there's no there's no chance.

[00:33:23]>> It's window pane. Chase window pain.

[00:33:26]>> I I'm I'll I'll leave. It's I'm sorry.

[00:33:28]Uh, thanks for the five months uh, five months silver little milestone. Five bucks payment due for services rendered.

[00:33:35]Well, >> what is my bank account going to look like in the next two to three years?

[00:33:39]>> I need I need seven figures. I need I need I need seven figures.

[00:33:43]>> That was just a soundboard, Chase.

[00:33:45]Sorry. Uh, Alex Jag two bucks. Did our boy do good? I missed the debate. Well, the the poll was like 95% in my favor, so I didn't I hope that's not I I I honestly I did I botted Jim Bob's channel. He's actually uh he's been making all these jokes cuz he has his like AI uh you know like Indian assistant Veene. Um and I I got Jim Bob like 200 Indian bots. So that was that was who vote. No, you you no I think you you obviously you obviously won.

[00:34:20]Thank you. Uh some comment about debates. Oh, I didn't even know we had a debate coming up.

[00:34:28]Well, follow me on X because that's where I'm talking about all the debates that I have coming up. Uh, see, I am like like MDD is kind ofing me down for debates and I don't want to say no to anything because I want them to like me.

[00:34:42]>> I think I think if you just whatever you agree to, you show up for, I think they'll like you, you know?

[00:34:49]>> Yeah.

[00:34:49]>> I think that's it.

[00:34:51]>> Yeah. So, like I I could have like I have a few things in the works. I guess I don't want to spoil everything, but yeah, there's like people are asking me, "Alex, when's the next uh when's the next uh recorded video?" And it's like these debates are kind of fun. I don't know. Like there's something about like, you know, you have a date and you know, you have to be like an expert on this in like by this date on this date you have to know at least a little more than your opponent on this topic. Like that's it.

[00:35:20]Like you said, you don't have to be an expert and like nerd out like know every single thing. You just need to know a little bit more than your opponent and that's it. Well, and it is funny because like I don't I don't think people people realize this like after when you're in like a debate and you know it's like okay this is this is live and there's other people listening and this is serious you actually get a bunch of adrenaline like even if it's a calmer debate afterwards you're like all right like I should you know I should go like take like do a jog take like have a beer whatever you know and you get a lot of adrenaline so afterwards it is kind of fun you're like oh >> yeah I can't sleep.

[00:35:56]>> Yeah. Uh, Silver says, "Be careful and do your best whenever you commit."

[00:36:00]That's the important part, right? It's like if if you don't show up 100% to a debate, then like you just didn't give yourself enough time, right? You always got to make sure that like you're comfortable when you show up. And like again, I'm not trying to be mad like mean to Neil or anything, but by the time he got to the end of his opening, I was like, "Bro, I was stressing out like a lot a lot about this one, and I did not need to." But better to uh prepare too much than >> I I agree that that's something that I really appreciate about about you. Um is, you know, you you you'll follow through. you'll know like you know what it's better like I don't need to debate everything if I debate a topic I need to make sure I'm ready for it and that I I win and I represent the orthodox position well and that hopefully get used by God to make an impact on as many people as possible because there's some people just treat it like a game and in a sense you can where it's like okay there's rules right you got to work within the parameters but it's like >> it's not a game in the sense of you can damage people's worldviews Yeah.

[00:37:08]>> And you it can hurt people and apologetics isn't isn't a game and it's not something where it's just okay let me let me just go do this for fun. It's you can enjoy it but it's people's souls. Not that you have that much power any human does. But it's like no you you can actually hurt people and you're going to have to answer for it if you just oh whatever I'll just debate and make a channel and do whatever. And I appreciate that you don't do that that you take it really seriously. You know, I think that's why you're going to be you're already phenomenal. I think you're going to be a top top tier orthodox debater.

[00:37:43]>> Well, thanks, man. I'll give me your Venmo and I'll pay you for that later.

[00:37:46]That's for all that. Uh >> Well, yeah, I got the lines right. I got the lines right. Right.

[00:37:51]>> Let me let me check the script that you sent.

[00:37:55]>> Oh, yeah. And and you're definitely you're definitely six foot tall for sure.

[00:38:00]>> I got the I got it.

[00:38:02]>> Thanks. Shane Fisio says, "I'm a fan of Jay, but when setting up debates, it's good to have a temperament that doesn't start from the top of the rope, so to speak." Yeah, I like to come in like with an energy that's like maybe slightly above. Like, you don't want to come off as a pushover. Like, there is like a mental element to it that's like, "Dude, I got to be like really confident in that opening." Like confident. And then I want them to like by the time I'm done with my opening, I want them to be like crap. you know, like that's that's kind of the the attitude that I want them to have, right? Like part of it is a mental game and it's just like the more you prepare, the more sure you are, the more sure you are of like your arguments and like that gets communicated in the way you talk about it, right? That's not something that you can really hide.

[00:38:49]>> No. And and an interesting thing is is um you know who's an expert at that is um is Andrew Wilson is you know and uh just his he's super intelligent but like his pacing and he talks we talk about that in his like first debate course that he did. Andrew's pacing is incredible when it comes to debates.

[00:39:14]>> And pacing is is really hard where you know you you know you want to get them to operate at your speed. You want to trip them up, but you don't want the audience to feel like you're being too aggressive, but you also want to kind of be like a pitbull and you see their neck exposed and you go for it.

[00:39:32]>> Um, and it's hard, man. That's really it's really hard.

[00:39:36]>> That's something we talk about in litigation is just like control. like you need to maintain control and I think that's what Andrew Wilson is really good at. Uh >> like in in different terms like from my lens. Jim Bob says Saurin is like a teddy bear with fangs. All right. That's that's the balance we're going for here, right?

[00:39:57]That's good. Mission accomplished. Uh Mr. Fist says complete and utter devastation. Can we get Alex a decent interlocutor next? Wow. Thank you. I like Neil, but that was that was a hard prompt for him.

[00:40:13]>> Well, what would be what would be the most uh what would be the debates the debate prompts that excite you the most?

[00:40:22]>> It's a good question >> because if if someone's trying to snipe at you now, this is good stuff for them to mind to try to, you know, propose a debate. What would you be excited about?

[00:40:33]>> I'm kind of dying for a solo scriptor debate. I haven't had a formal debate on solo scriptor to be honest. That's like a pretty basic one. Fine. Like white girl summer, whatever. But like everybody's had a soloscrip tour debate except me.

[00:40:49]>> Mhm. And it is it is f because I mean it's the lynch pin of you know the majority of Protestants. It's it's it's what everything sits on. And it's funny cuz I know that um that JP Goober who seems like really unhinged from when I called in there like they seem very unhinged. Um >> guys, if you guys didn't see that, who was I think Contemporary Compendium clipped that because JP and Mer had this like schismatic priest on to just like poo poo orthob bros and say the orthobros are so bad. Orthobros like they're they're racist. They're homophobic. They're mean. Like literally every single leftist tactic in the book they slammed at like term orthob bros.

[00:41:31]Guys, Chase calls in. He asks one question.

[00:41:36]What is an orthobro?

[00:41:38]Can you define it please? Guys, they could not define orthobro. They could not answer that question. And I was just like, yeah, how are you going to go around calling people cult members, calling people uh not Christian, calling people brainwashed, saying that they don't worship God, that they don't love God, that they're going to hell that they're going to hell. And you don't even know who these people are. Like, that's so >> it's them. They're out there. What do you mean, Alex? I know who they are.

[00:42:07]It's them. It's It's the other. It's the other.

[00:42:11]Um >> it's Alinsky tactics, right? Isn't it?

[00:42:14]Like I I heard Jay and Father Deacon Inanas using the term recently too. It's like it is right out of the leftist playbook.

[00:42:22]>> Yep. Yep. But it it's interesting because uh he like he's wants to debate okay like did uh the Anthony Nyine fathers um believe in icon veneration right or I'm sorry intercessory prayers of the saints. It's like okay like that's a debate but all of everything your entire system sits on solos scriptura. Why don't you want to debate why don't you want to debate the foundation of your entire system?

[00:42:49]>> Yeah, >> you'll find it's kind of hard to have a Protestant debate because they'll go to scripture and then they'll have like some very unconventional understanding of a passage and then like the natural question is okay, but did anybody that like was a native ancient Greek speaker that like lived in that culture, did anybody understand this the same way that you do now? And the answer would be, well, nobody that that spoke ancient Greek that lived in that culture understands that the way that they do now.

[00:43:20]>> Yep.

[00:43:21]>> But they don't really care.

[00:43:23]>> Yeah.

[00:43:23]>> It's more like this. This is a permissible reading, so I'm going to go with that one because that fits my system.

[00:43:30]>> Yep.

[00:43:32]>> Yeah.

[00:43:34]>> Hey, John.

[00:43:36]>> My girl just got home. might have to get off soon. But in the filth says JP was just doing an inter session debate with someone. JP has spent all of his stuff already on this, so I'm not really worried about this this debate. If I if I you know, if it ends up going through, I don't see why not. But Father Steven is in the chat, too. Neil was on the total wrong track. I could argue that sideway better than Neil. I think I know better than to argue anything with Father Steven.

[00:44:04]>> Oh, I'm I'm sure I'm sure I'm sure he could. I I do think it's funny because it shifted, you know, like you brought up, it shifted from yes, the affirmative, they're hitting the same reference to they could be. It's like, well, sure, I can argue that an individual on an individual level, they could be. I don't have access to their heart.

[00:44:23]>> I can argue that obviously through the Eucharist and through the empirical experience of God through the sacraments, Orthodox Christians 100% are when they participate in those things.

[00:44:34]But you can't defend yes, they are.

[00:44:36]That's just insane. I don't think it's defensible.

[00:44:39]>> Yeah, there was like a truth values.

[00:44:42]>> No, >> there's like a truth values.

[00:44:45]>> Alice is getting scolded right now. His bedtime's coming up.

[00:44:48]>> My bedtime is coming up. But there's like a truth values issue there, right?

[00:44:51]Where it's like >> he had to defend yes they are. Like definitively yes they are. So the instant that he says may and I didn't really catch this in the moment but the instant that he says they may like he kind of lost. It's it is forfeiting the forfeiting the debate. Yeah. But I mean I I get it like you were Neil was being very good faith. You didn't want to be like >> okay well that you know did you just did you just like forfeit the debate and we can keep going but you forfeited the prompt right? Right.

[00:45:23]>> Yeah. I maybe you can explain this to me is that >> how is it not a concession when he says they're a two reference >> that I think he may have miss like I that is a concession saying it's >> that's what I thought but he may have just misspoke. He may have just misspoke and he meant they're two different signifiers two different symbols to hit the same reference. He may have meant that. You know what I mean? But yeah.

[00:45:50]No, when you say it's like Yes. And then he even he agreed when I I forgot what it said. I'm I've been up since like I think like 5 in the morning. I didn't get much sleep last night, but I when I called into the debate, he agreed like twice and I was like, "Okay, thank you."

[00:46:05]Like, "Good job, Alex. He conceded, you know, and I forgot what it was, but he conceded many times."

[00:46:11]>> Yeah.

[00:46:13]Alex's wife must be the biggest darling.

[00:46:15]Look at how he looks at her. All the sparkly in his eyes. Yes. and she will never be on this channel ever because >> the sparkliness and the fear. If you pause at that frame, you'll actually see >> the two natures.

[00:46:33]That's right. Pure fear. Chimob says, "I thought the trans at the bar example was brutal for Neil." I could barely keep it together. That was hilarious at the end there. It was like there was there was a part in the debate where I was like I I thought I boiled this down like pretty efficiently and then I was like I still could simplify it more. Like really the most powerful analogy is something like what Jim Bob brought up. It's like look you think this is a girl at a bar. Turns out you were mistaken. Like how is that not a how does the reference not shift with that event? Right. Well, well, with Well, with that one, is it that there's a person at the bar and you don't know, like you think you think they have the attributes of a of a female, but they're they really have the attributes of a male? Is that the the analogy?

[00:47:23]>> Yeah. I mean, attributes is an interesting choice of word, but they have the attributes of a male.

[00:47:27]>> Yeah, I know. I'm trying. Yeah. But but with with that, it's like again, there's an empirical verification principle where you point to them, right? And it's with with Muslims.

[00:47:41]Yeah. Okay. Yeah. You point to a lot of things. I get it. I get it, Alex.

[00:47:46]With Muslims though, the the empirical verification, Christ's incarnation, they outright reject.

[00:47:55]That's like going up to going, "That person at the bar, um, their name, their name is Kyle, and they're right there."

[00:48:03]And then me going, "No, that's not Kyle.

[00:48:06]Kyle's over there. He's in the back corner. Now, when we both say Kyle, cuz let's say both of their names are Kyle, just one of us knows him, the other one doesn't. When each one of us says Kyle, what which reference, the one at the left, the back corner or the front corner of the bar are we pointing to?

[00:48:23]That's going to depend on intent, isn't it?

[00:48:25]>> Yeah, that's what I was trying to explain too. Like I don't think I don't think that quite landed with him too where I was like saying like look, there's like kind of a sliding scale like of intent, right? Like if you're not really informed then like you can't really this is like St. Cyprien when he's talking about Marcion he says that he does not worship the same god as us and the principle he uses is that your worship can't go further than your confession the thing is like if you don't really understand your confession and I mean that's like a pretty broad thing that you're appealing to right so like the Roman Catholic system obviously references a different god that said a bunch of Roman Catholics don't know what their system says. They think they just worship Jesus. So like I can see like in a way maybe like a very ignorant Muslim, a very ignorant Protestant, very ignorant Roman Catholic like doesn't know any better. There's a possibility maybe that they could be the right >> yes in instances. Absolutely. Despite their incorrect ideas about God, could they? Sure. I don't have access to their hearts. It's like Matt. It's like It's like saying, "Okay, um, Alex, I'm gonna ask you to point to all these different individuals at a bar." Again, another bar example. Uh, point to the ones who it would be sinful for them to have another drink.

[00:49:52]Well, you don't have access to that.

[00:49:54]There is an objective line at which it is going to be sinful for them to have another drink, >> but you don't have access to that.

[00:50:01]>> It's just It's so goofy. It's it's it's really absurd. Am I ignoring Father Stephen? Oh no. Oh no. Let me on the stream. I've got Doc Branson's record to break. I I I will put the link, but can't break Doc Records. Branson or Doc Doc Branson's record tonight.

[00:50:26]Hey, Petrista Clips. Uh if you go to this debate made by Jim Bob, you're going to find some material here.

[00:50:34]where Neil conceded like about a billion times that it's two different reference.

[00:50:42]So how did he try anything else besides just saying well there was a a a something being woripped at this time in place in history in the Middle East and they called that the God of Abraham.

[00:50:57]Is there did he offer anything else?

[00:51:02]I'm trying to remember. I don't think he really did. Maybe we can review his opening statement. Well, you watched the opening statements.

[00:51:09]>> Yeah, I saw I saw the I saw I saw your opening statement and then I had to mute it because I was at the car I was at the car shop and it was terrible. I hate I hate being there. Gross.

[00:51:18]>> Yeah. Uh I I don't know. Chat, did he offer any other reasons? Those were kind of the only reasons that that stuck in my head >> from what he said. I mean, I took some notes. Um, so he said, "I'm making a historical anthropological argument that everybody's worshiping the God of Abraham, the God of Moses, and Christianity goes in a whole different direction." To which I was like, "So, it's a different reference." As soon as I heard him say that in his opening, I was like, "That helps me.

[00:51:56]That doesn't help him."

[00:51:58]Um he referenced Ebianites and the Gnostics like the Gnostatists and he was like, "Oh, they're Christians too. They don't have this uh uh understanding of God. They're worshiping God and they're Christians, too." To which in my rebuttal, no, they're not.

[00:52:15]>> Well, and and yeah, and that's again, it seems like it just kept being assertion of the position. they they are they're they're the same thing or you can loosely some people will call them by the same uh the same thing and I remember he was talking about yahwinists right and he's like that's a category now it's like so someone made up a term that doesn't mean that >> when you say yinist you have a bucket like you have a bucket of people that you're talking about that doesn't mean that when they say God of Abraham that everyone else means the same thing how how would that follow it doesn't >> yeah uh the record is 8 hours and 18 minutes with Doc Branson Pufferfish.

[00:52:55]Pretty sure uh Shane Pyio's five months.

[00:52:58]Thank you. Did I hear record 10-hour stream, guys? I have to set time aside for a 10-hour stream. Uh let me run and get some more Boomer Juice White Monsters. Well, I've been doing like the the Celsiuses.

[00:53:13]>> So, you have you tried Ghost?

[00:53:15]>> You have the wrong reference, but yeah, Ghost has some good ones. Like what's the uh cereal milk?

[00:53:21]>> Oh, I I can't do that.

[00:53:22]>> Oh, that's the protein, I think.

[00:53:24]>> Yeah, >> the the like the there's an there's like a mango orange one. The non- candy flavors are tastes pretty good. I haven't had one in forever. Um I can't believe you do monsters. I can't handle them. I I actually get jittery.

[00:53:38]>> Have you tried Praise Energy? I don't know what that is. What is Praise Energy?

[00:53:44]>> That's a fake product that Jim Bob made up.

[00:53:48]It's a subscription model for uh for for prayer probably.

[00:53:52]>> Not going to lie, that would probably sell like hot cakes. Alani is better than Celsius. I am partial to the Alani.

[00:53:58]That's right.

[00:54:01]>> Yeah, look at snow quilter looking got my back. Guys, it's Wednesday and Mrs. Alex just got home presumably from work.

[00:54:07]No 10our stream demands. Well, not today.

[00:54:14]Yeah.

[00:54:16]Uh, Red Bull or nothing because it's familyowned. Is it actually?

[00:54:29]I don't know. Yeah. So, I mean, overall, like W debate. I mean, like what what do I have coming up next? I don't even know.

[00:54:38]Like, my schedule is all over the place.

[00:54:42]Uh, oh, I just got an email for something cool. But yeah, I got to do a membersonly stream.

[00:54:52]There's some cool stuff I got to catch you guys up on, for sure. 10 bucks from Octaven. Historically speaking, to be considered a Christian, one must worship Christ. System defeater.

[00:55:03]>> But what if they are worshiping Christ and you just don't know it? Okay, but you said they are. They're the same God.

[00:55:09]So, how do you prove that?

[00:55:14]>> I don't know, man. It's all like such a weird debate and I I feel like I I overthought it a bit, but it was it was good cuz like I It really is. It's just like how was this term used? Like everybody means different like they're referring to different things.

[00:55:32]>> Yep.

[00:55:32]>> Very obviously. I don't know.

[00:55:36]>> No, you do know. It just get it gets it sometimes it's actually harder to debate like against really bad positions. It's actually harder to debate against them because it's so you're like you're thinking it can't just be this simple and then you give the simple reputation like no that's it. And the other person's like no here's this whole like web of of of things that I have. You're like no you know this super simple argument actually still wins. And you keep thinking like it can't be this simple. Yeah, it is, dude. Like, yeah, I think a lot of it was like really was kind of my reaction there. But, uh, Father Steven with Honey, where is is Father Steven still coming? I don't want to end the stream, but I wonder how Alex would have done without the earpiece of Chase earpiece of Chase telling him what to say live. I mean, I had my script written out already beforehand, but I mean, Chase was good. He was helpful with the prep for sure. Made me think.

[00:56:40]>> You didn't need You didn't need any help.

[00:56:44]>> You didn't need any help.

[00:56:45]>> Well, Neil's a good guy. It's a goofy position. And you're a smart dude.

[00:56:52]>> I appreciate that. But yeah, W debate, Alex. I need imperial evidence, like ecumenical evidence.

[00:57:02]not uh not uh empirical ecumenical evidence. Great debate, Chase. Well done, Chase. Good job. W Chase.

[00:57:11]>> Yeah, I'll take the channel now. Thanks, Alex.

[00:57:14]>> Did Neil think that the Jews were worshiping the same God whenever they made the golden calf just because they called it Yahweh? He That's a good question. I should have asked him that.

[00:57:25]Probably if he has to be consistent, right?

[00:57:31]Right. Don't you think Chase? I mean, >> yeah. Yeah. And even Well, I was just thinking about it where it's like, okay, from within the paradigm, you would say, well, yeah, even with a causal chain, they can worship not God, right? Um, but then trying I was trying to think of like, okay, he wants to have this neutrality, which does not exist. It does not exist with anything.

[00:57:53]>> There's no neutral. That doesn't mean you can't know truth, but there's no neutral. But even that it's like no I mean how can you say that Jews or Muslims believe that just because they're it's a causal chain that they're worshiping something else. He has to commit to this weird linguistic solopism. That's the only way it works and then but he wouldn't fully commit to that. So he you know it just doesn't it doesn't work. I I want to think of ways to make it work because it's false but it's good to do that. It's a good exercise and I I just can't.

[00:58:24]>> Yeah. Father Steven says, "I'm not going to keep you away from your wife, dude.

[00:58:28]Go be a husband." To which Pufferfish says, "No."

[00:58:35]To which the rest of the chat says, "W Father Steven, w Jim Bob. Jim Bob for the win." Guys, I'm going to wrap it up here on Father Steven's advice. And also, it's midnight. So guys, I love you guys.

[00:58:49]Chase, thanks again, man. Thanks for hopping on the stream. I know you like to stay behind the scenes, but you know, uh it's cool to to get you on here because you have some like good takes with the philosophy and stuff. It it did I I did appreciate it a lot. So guys, check out the debate on Jim Bob's channel. I'll uh link it in the description. Uh you know, I realized I hadn't done that yet, but I'll put it in the description so you guys can go and watch it.

[00:59:10]>> Um yeah, I thought it was a pretty pretty solid uh debate and like another definitive win, which puts me at like what now? This is like what uh >> 10 million two five seven 8 million >> to zero.

[00:59:27]>> That another win in the bag of orthodoxy. Yeah, that's right. Truly he's risen, guys. Thanks again. Uh love you. Bye-bye. The