This video presents a philosophical argument that objective morality requires a personal source (God) because impersonal naturalistic frameworks cannot provide the necessary foundation for moral obligations, as they reduce morality to subjective preferences or goal-based ethics without genuine prescriptive authority.
Install our extension to search inside any video instantly.
Re: Moral Argument Marathon 4
Added:Because it's a re-examination show featuring Zilzone.
Zilzone, why don't you tell us what's coming up on August 5th?
What's coming up on August 5th is a friendly debate between me and re-examination on Mullenism versus reformed monism more or less.
>> Yeah, monism. Uh I I call it uh compatibilism because I don't like you know I believe that free will and um predestination are compatible that they don't necessarily cancel out or conflict one with another. I think our choices and the consequences of our choices are very real and we are held responsible as such and uh and you would agree with that but uh you take it from the mullenist side which has to do more with uh what do you call hey certainty exists. Welcome. Welcome. You know what?
Certainty. Are you on Discord? Certainty exists. Do you have a Discord somewhere?
Can you send Can you post that in the chat or I don't think you have a real good way of uh reaching out. Kelly, how you doing?
All right. So, today we're going to be going over an implementation of the moral argument that I have been uh working on. It has to do with knowledge.
And uh ought we believe that which is true, ought we reject that which is false. That's the question that I like to get to. And uh we're just gonna hop in. This was on Terak's show, by the way. And you can find this live stream on my channel. And you can also find on Terak. Like and subscribe to Terak stuff. He has a very entertaining setup.
>> No, no, she I have to interject. I have to interject. You said >> just so you know, Terak is the guy on the far left on the way down. He's the host of the show. Shiva is the one with the idol figurine in the top right and I respect him. Yeah, I disagree with him a lot but I respect him very much and his intellectual prowess. And then there's Charles Darwin who's the guy who must interject and must interrupt.
>> Before you do so, Charles, >> you said no. You said 29 degrees.
>> Machiwa Reggie. Machiwa.
>> That's Jim Bob by the way. [laughter] >> Machiwa Rex, welcome back.
>> Hey back and none too soon. Shiva Charles good to see you.
>> Hey that's reexamination.
>> No no no no no Shiva said >> I think he said that because he doesn't like Rex but he has used Rex before. I don't understand. Um I don't know. I don't know what's going on.
>> Correction. Someone said 29 degrees C versus um 30° C. No, it's >> it's like [ __ ] one degree [ __ ] either side of the same [ __ ] thing.
>> Okay. So that that's what I was Charles I was expanding on that. So So we have an absolute zero and like is that zero Kelvin? Like I don't know what it is Kelvin but >> absolute absolute absolute zero is 230° um Celsius if I remember correctly. I could be wrong. 230° C is not absolutely >> no correction correction minus >> well Charles Jack hits us with the >> oh my goodness >> I'm here to tell you right now we don't care [laughter] >> and that part is true we don't care so we're going to spin the wheel >> he says spin that wheel so we got to spin that wheel unfortunately I'm I'm pretty sure what you were going to say Charles was very enlightening though to be fair you know what I'm saying also have a good one back. If determinism is true and all our actions are caused by prior events, can we still be morally responsible for what we do?
>> And both Zilzo and I agree. Yes. For different reasons.
>> Yeah.
>> I have a feeling this is going to get interesting with Rex and and Shiv on panel. Go ahead, gentlemen.
>> So, [clears throat] it >> is determinism true?
We're granting that it is true in this case. If it is true >> in this case, well, it depends on your model of determinism. If you have a material determinism, I think it would necessarily be true that you are not a moral agent and therefore responsibility would be moot as an idea altogether cuz your brain would just be downstream from the laws of physics rippling from the big bang and throughout red shift and all the things in between. you're just a wind suck in space and time, you know, just reacting to the ripples across the uh space-time continuum. Um, but as far as far as Christianity goes, >> I can't tell if you're nodding or bopping your head, Zilzone. You listening to >> I'm nodding as I'm listening to you. I'm nodding.
>> Uh, I would say because there is a differentiation not only a spiritual and a physical side of the individual person, but there is also primary and secondary causation. You can have um decreed ends which will inevitably happen while also interacting within a free will space of your own choices that actually reflect your individual wants and desires. Now, I spat that out at rapid speed and most people aren't going to know what that means.
[sighs] So, in my previous stream back from like five minutes ago, I talked about primary and secondary causation. Primary causation being the decree of God before time that would determine what would happen and secondary causation being the free will of the creatures acting upon their desires and priorities to carry out that decreed will of God for what would happen. Um and so determinism is usually the idea that you're just everything is fatalistic and you don't have to worry about what you do because outcomes are just what they are. But outcomes do come by means and means include the things that people do.
So uh so yeah the both exist.
>> Okay. Another point I'd like to make is well I agreed with you earlier that we agree on this but I don't know if I actually agree that determinism is true.
I don't think I would go far to say that.
>> Well I don't use the term determinism. I would call it predestination. kind of like how there's a difference between there's a difference between um the free grace, right, as a term and then or or ra and then like perseverance of the saints because perseverance of the saints has to do with us persevering over temptation and sin as well by the power of God. And not just um not just like, oh, I believed in God for five minutes and that's got my ticket punched, so I'm going to heaven.
Well, real quick, give us the distinction between determinism and predestination.
>> Yeah. So, are we doing the debate now?
>> No, no, no, no. We should do that on the 5th. It's coming up.
>> Okay.
>> We'll do that later.
>> Yeah. Because that that's the risk of you and I doing this discussion is is going to be it's going to be more focused.
>> Okay.
>> In that way. But yeah, I would say determinis I would say determinism is fatalistic whereas predestination has to do with uh our faith that God will bring about all things to the his glory and our good. Romans 8. So >> I also accept the fact >> I'm excited for our debate.
>> I do what you will but you cannot will what you will because what you will is correspondent to the nature that you already have in you. Whether that be >> by by the way when I say what you will iss correspond to your nature. I'm talking about whether or not you've been born again in Christ that the Holy Spirit has changed you. If the Holy Spirit has not changed you then your will is going to be against God. If your Holy Spirit has changed you your will is going to be for God. Um I might even do a separate stream even after this stream because um I I shared with you what one guy said about that and that I think that deserves its own stream but it doesn't deserve its own debate.
>> All right. be predelected to one goal ultimately of self or another goal of glorification of God. But if you have a fallen flesh, the person can have a split in terms of not not an equal split [clears throat] but at least a difference in the will that they have inherited on their physical side, the fallen flesh that has a corruption to it and then of their spiritual side which you know if renewed in Christ would be uh towards God and his will.
She before before >> No, you disagree. Was that you saying whoa?
>> Yeah, I was just because of the comment.
I was looking for an opportunity. So >> Oh, okay.
>> Whoa.
>> Yeah. Yep.
>> That means >> That's fine.
>> No, I don't necessarily disagree. I just don't understand what you're talking about.
>> That's fine. I I admit that I am sometimes way too in the weeds and I try to I try to split the difference between keeping it brief and making it clear.
And I think I sacrifice clarity all the time. And so that's my fault. But Shiva, I would love to hear your thoughts. Give any challenges to mine.
>> Yeah, part of it is just having good friends who will tell you the truth. Um, you cannot be you cannot do well in life and you cannot have any right thoughts about anything unless you have friends who are willing to tell you uncomfortable truths about yourself. And uh you can't also like bar the door to uncomfortable truths about yourself if you want to get anywhere in life, >> right? What the heck? We we act like we're not works in progress. Like that's just pride. That's just garbage. You can't you can't be like, "Guys, I'm perfect." Okay, get out of here with that.
>> Never seen anything like it before, >> dude. Dude, dude, use small words because I'm I'm I'm [ __ ] So even though I don't understand what the [ __ ] you were talking about, [laughter] >> are you are you [ __ ] looking after a [ __ ] um like a [ __ ] Texan [ __ ] Texas [ __ ] thing like [ __ ] bring it [ __ ] down in [ __ ] small words in simple [ __ ] terms that simple people like me can understand.
Jesus.
>> Okay, you have 20 minutes. You have 20 minutes. Charles Charles starts to sweat when you use words over four letters long.
>> Exactly.
>> So, if determinism is true and all our actions are caused by prior events, can we still be morally responsible for what we do?
Um, it depends on what you mean by morally responsible or >> right. So, Shiva in many of our conversations uh at least lately has been a moral nihilist. has taken the position that the uh even the idea of thinking about morality as a real category is just void in of itself. I think I'm I think I'm doing it justice.
Let me actually double check on that.
That for the definition of moral nihilism.
>> Well, the suffix nihilism, nihilism entails nothing matters. There's no value in choices, right?
Moral nihilism is the metaethical view that nothing is inherently right or wrong. It argues that objective moral facts do not exist in the universe and that ethical principles are merely human inventions rather than universal truths which I disagree with fundamentally obviously.
>> Well, they're honest atheists.
>> Honest atheists, >> right? the ones fighting vying for actual objective morality are lying objective ethics >> morals. So, so if you mean like a kind of normative standard of um behavior um and then you trans you transgress that standard in some way um then yes I think you can be held responsible for what you do even if actions are caused by prior events.
>> Very interesting. So I think you and I have a very interesting convergence that um >> because yeah like because you know like conditioning is a thing right? So let's say um um like and and part of part of conditioning is um is punishment and the threats thereof. And I think any parent will tell you that that if you threaten a punishment for a given action and then you fail to deliver on that punishment, then then that sends a message to the child that that there are no consequences for their actions, right?
>> Um and like you know I mean >> can you pause it?
>> Yeah. Zil, why don't you monologue while I get some food in me? Cuz you probably ate. I have not. I came home after church and I just I saw Seth Andrews and Matt Delhunty. I'm like, >> I got to get two birds with one stone, man. So, I'm going to get some food. You entertain the people with your monologue and skills.
>> Yep. Let's go.
>> All right, guys. So, React sent me this video earlier, and I'm not going to spoil it or anything, uh, but it was very interesting to uh to listen to. And this latest um point from this guy is, oh yeah, he brought up parents.
As soon as he brought up parents, he's already made it subjective to his own parental morals, he's immediately turned his entire argument into subjectivity because not all parents think the same thing is good for their child.
Some parents, like me, an objective Viking, I think um I think kids should learn how to swim when they're one years old. I just toss them over and if they make it, they make it. If they don't, they don't. The strong survive. Only the strongest survive the objective Vikings. Okay? And you can't say that my parenting is bad cuz you're, Mr. Shiva, you're making the argument that the parents know what's good for the kids, right? So, if I think the kids go overboard to see if they sink or swim, you got to say that's just as legit as your parenting skills. That's why I'm an objective Viking. Okay? And I make you guys look silly, right? Me and my objective Viking friends with our social contract, we all agree on a social contract that we don't care about human life. Even amongst our young youngans, they they they got to fight to survive from the get-go.
They have a baby in the hole of the ship. We we toss the baby overboard and if it makes it back up on the deck, we keep it. And that's that's just how we've done it for generations and generations of the objective Vikings, guys. And and that my parenting skills are actually really I think they're cool, guys. And in fact, you think they're cool, Shiva, cuz you think Oh, you think your parenting skills are cool? You think you have the objective morals that parents should have for their children? You are you so pompous to assume something like that? You wouldn't dare do that, would you?
You wouldn't dare assume that all parents know how to take care of their children, would you? Just from magic.
Does it What's the name of the particle that gives parents the knowledge for how to raise their children? Shiva, is it is this a scientific uh particle we can reproduce in a lab? Can we do this experiment, Shiva? Um, yeah. What do we do? Just listen to the parents, right?
Because all the parents are going to agree with you, right? Not me.
Not me, sucker. Objective Vikings.
We don't play games. And we're in Greenland right now. We're making our way across the world and we're going to start conquering other nations next. me, my friends, with our social contract to not give a dang.
And you think it's moral, you objective moralists, social contract.
You guys, you guys think you guys think everyone's going to converge on your idea of morality.
That's your own pre-mptive garbage. That's your own presupposition, guys. You think you really think that society is going to agree on your own morals, and you think that's just going to converge out of nowhere.
You You have nothing to point to for your morals.
Um, aside from God. God is the best explanation for the universe, why we're here, how we got here. It's such a better explanation than the void producing our universe by unknown means.
Okay.
Uh it just sounds very silly to me. And and I just think that God is the creator who revealed himself to us through the Bible is a much more plausible explanation for all of this than just the void just spit us out due to atheist woo woo magic.
Okay?
Like you guys really need to stop being silly. Okay? And uh you know what? Um, >> have you taught these suckers how to stop being silly?
>> Exactly, React. I was just going to pass it back to you, bro. You got this.
>> All right, we continue.
>> Yeah. I so I mean like I think it's um um perfectly fine to like even if determinism is is is true because if determinism is false and our actions aren't caused like you could ask the question if determinism is false and all our actions are random which is which is the um um uh negative of causation right um and all actions are random. Can we still be morally responsible for what we do?
Right. And like like on a pragmatic level, it seems to me that the answer has to be yes.
>> So you' say in all cases responsibility would exist with rational moral agents.
>> Can I jump in?
>> Yeah.
>> Um simple question. Who asked who um determined anything?
>> I don't think I don't think determinism implies an agent.
>> Well, someone no one had to because um if there's determinism, then someone thinks that there is a person who said, "Oh, I think this is how things work."
>> That is the natural understanding of what a determination is, isn't it? There has to be a conscious parameter being set by a conscious person.
>> But Atheist will not allow for that.
>> Right. We're talking about the source of actions, the agent source of or the cause of things. And you you brought the chain back to the big bang and you're right about that cuz every if everything is just a machine, it's just a machine from the big bang and then everything is meaningless.
>> Yeah. In the previous stream, there was a guy in the comments in the chat and he was saying that, "Oh, uh, all atheism is is lack of belief in God." And I'm like, "Okay, yeah, but on average, atheists are evolutionists." He's like, "Well, you made the tie from atheism to evolution and all that kind of stuff."
And that's just there's no tie there.
It's like, on average, atheists believe in evolution. Even >> Yeah. Like, come on. Come on. Don't They're They're trying to divert.
They're trying.
>> Yeah. It's It's like, okay, so what what kind of atheist are you? A spiritual one. You don't know what atheism is.
Okay. Can you just get off the pogo stick and just say something, you know?
But >> yeah, >> dodging. They're dodging. They're they're scared, >> right? So, okay. Then then the question would be in that case, do you believe in the spiritual realm? And he wouldn't answer if he believed in the spiritual realm because that would mean that you would have a mechanism by which to overcome natural laws being the only thing making your brain do anything.
>> Oo, he doesn't like thinking about consciousness. Isn't that interesting?
No, he just wants to tell me I don't know what atheism is, which I'm pretty sure I know what atheism is. Even if you have an atheism that includes a spiritual realm and doesn't include evolution somehow. I mean, I guess if you want to believe that there was no evolution and the species that are here just always were here, I I'd like to see you actually establish how that works.
But anyway, that's a whole other ball of wax.
>> Um, so who said what?
>> No, that's not what determinism is.
>> Really? Oh, >> yeah. Because that's part of the reason why I reject determinism because I usually associate determinism with a non-theistic model of um physics being the you know unfolding into consequences. They're merely descriptions and not prescriptions in any sense. Okay. What I mean by that is um if a rock bumps into another rock that's not a moral offense but if a man punches another man that's a moral offense because you there is a standard by which you can judge that the man has value the man's well-being has value.
You have responsibility to respect it.
Um, you have there are moral laws that correspond to that and the punishment of those offenses.
>> What if you named the rock? What you named the rock?
>> I'm going to be offended if you if you bump into my rock. If I give him a name, if his name's Charles, >> well, that'd be property rights.
>> Oh, okay. And there you go. Okay.
[laughter] Okay.
Good stuff.
is different than obviously the offense and the breaking of that moral law itself.
>> So um determinism it could be just like like I said when we started >> what's a moral law?
>> Yeah. So a moral law would be that which corresponds to our given purpose and the given purpose would be given by God. So I'll give you I'll give you an example of moral law. Uh Shiva, would you agree that we ought to believe and adhere to what is true and we ought to reject what is false and not dis >> that is the key question I give in the new argument here is uh should we accept what is true ought we accept what is true and reject that which is false now some people have uh understood that to mean ought we accept things the way they are which is not what I'm saying what I'm saying is if something is true ought we believe it's true and live accordingly if there is there any prescriptivity to it and So far, I've I've wondered what kind of answers I've gotten, and Shiva is among the more intelligent atheists that I've ever encountered here in the YouTube debate space. And so, I wanted to put it to the test because I've tested people who aren't quite as practice as Shiva.
>> Not believe what >> you don't believe that.
>> No.
>> Well, I mean, it's I back that up just so everybody knows exactly what happened.
>> So, moral law would be that which corresponds to our given purpose and the given purpose would be given by God. So I'll give you I'll give you an example of moral law. Uh Shiva, would you agree that we ought to believe and adhere to what is true and we ought to reject what is false and not dis and not believe what's >> you don't believe that?
>> No. Well, I mean it's then okay then then why then really >> so he's going to go into a gold-based thing but that is the same answer that Matt Dillah Hunty gave very quickly.
[snorts] Uh Robin uh more intelligent than you Robin. Uh, I haven't actually seen you in action. If you want to uh send me a DM in Discord of one of your debates, then I can make that determination. But Shiva uh is a a challenge for most Christians. And uh I can see I can see why. He's very rhetorically effective.
He's got this uh Jeremy Irons Alan Rickman kind of hybrid British accent which already makes you sound smarter than 10,000% of the rest of humanity. Uh he's very uh he's got a very good vocabulary and uh he's really good at parsing questions which can be very intimidating to a lot of people but uh but yeah um I'm glad you were not personally offended that I called another atheist smart. Moving on.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay.
>> If you're concern >> if your concern is is is with the truth then yes you you you ought to adhere you ought to adhere to that. Right. because otherwise you're going to be um failing in achieving whatever truth-based objective it is that you're striving for.
>> Should I believe that the truth is better than lies?
>> Should you believe that the truth is better than lies?
>> Yeah, I uh you know, Robin, I'm going I'm just going to need some evidence.
>> I'm just going to need some evidence, Robin. Just you know, don't you love the pursuit of evidence? I I I have experience with Shiva. I have no experience with how you debate and how you go back and forth. So, you know, that's why I said send me a DM of one of your debates. I >> uh not not necessarily.
>> Okay. So, what makes any worldview Let me ask you this.
>> So, wait, let me let me give you an example. All right.
>> Let me give you an example.
>> All right. Let's say you're in Second World War Nazi Germany and you've got Jews hiding in your house >> and then the Nazis turned up at your door.
>> Yeah.
>> Is the truth better than a lie?
>> Okay. So, here's the equivocation here.
The truth is still better than a lie.
And I get to this later because the truth is you ought not be persecuting the Jewish people. You ought not be trying to exterminate them. But the question he's really asking is in that particular instance, should you tell the truth? Are you morally obligated to tell the truth or does the prescriptivity of truth fail here because you ought to tell a lie in order to make the Nazis go away? Right.
>> Yes.
>> Go ahead, Zil.
>> Yeah, I like to add to that. My way of saying that is the truth is a base set unchangeable. And then if you add complexity on top of that, it does not change the base layer. So what they want to do to obfuscate the situation is add a bunch of complexity and say, "Oh, look, the truth is muddled." Muddied.
No, you've added complexity to the baseline and you have not changed that truth exists. Okay, >> we got uh Robin Webster with uh manifesting man envy here. I don't know what to say. It's you know, I did I didn't do it. Um but uh yeah, so there's the base set part, but to directly answer the question about what would I do if I were not influenced by such a fear of what the Yazis would do to me and the people I'm trying to hide and then and then lie. If I were not influenced by that, I would try to find every way to not answer the question of whether or not I were hiding Jews in my house. And the question to me is not do I succeed or fail in in fooling them you know with a lie and or or anything like that or do I succeed or fail in terms of giving red herrings to distract them by not answering their question. The question at mine would be do I succeed or fail to maintain my integrity before I die. That's the ultimate thing >> because God searches the hearts. God searches the hearts.
Yeah. And so while I understand I totally get people lying, I can even say that it makes sense strategically to do that for that certain end. I still don't believe that lies become good on a situation-based ethic. So um Robin, it's not that I don't get that people would have the humor. It's just do I know you have that kind of humor or not? Because based on text, I can't tell. I can't tell what's teasing and what's not. That's all >> uh I would say that uh the there's the in that case I would I don't know what I would do. I still believe that lying would be immoral in that case.
>> So I'm going to remain but that that's not the question. The question is >> part of it is the question because for example some people believe that if you and your family are starving then you ought to steal bread to uh give it to your family. But I say I still say that stealing even in that case is immoral.
It doesn't be even if it's mitigated, it doesn't become moral by virtue of your need. Even by virtue of your need. So it is still their stuff. It is still their food that you're taking even if you and your kids are starving. And it didn't change hands of belonging to somebody else just because you had a need for something like that.
So, >> wasn't there a um there was a determination for those who stole food due to need in the repayment, wasn't it?
There was a leniency there, wasn't there, in the Old Testament? Do you know what I'm talking about?
>> Yeah. I You're talking about, I think, a passage in Proverbs or Ecclesiastes that talks about no one hates a man if he steals bread, if he's hungry, but if he is caught, he will pay sevenfold or something like that.
>> Something. Yeah. Sevenfold.
So I guess my point is what is my point? Some sins are worse than others. Is that it?
>> Yeah. Well, s some sins are worse than others. That's true. Okay. So, Proverbs 6, we're going to go to verse 30 and 31.
People do not despise a thief if he steals to satisfy his appetite when he is hungry. But if he is caught, he will pay sevenfold. He will give all the goods of his house.
Yeah. I think that's that's really lenient.
That's like that's like God being like, "Look, it's hard. Look, it's going to be a risk and no one's really going to be mad."
I don't know. What do you think about it?
>> I think it's still sin. even if it's mitigated in terms of severity by need >> it becomes what I call understandable >> but that doesn't make it morally acceptable just because there's even even like a threat to your life doesn't become more I mean for example like David played as if he was crazy to avoid like being turned over to Saul um by another king when he was captured by another kingdom but yeah >> okay >> Robin Webster has determined that she and Maud are the only two that matter I'm still waiting for I'm still waiting for Mod and Zilzone to make the Modzilla podcast. I mean, it's like missed opportunity.
>> Oh, let's go. We might >> Oh, no.
>> That is right there. Let's go.
>> He He would He would be the person who the question >> the the I'm going to put you beside the rainbow. Okay. Let Let Rex and Shiva have his bag. Play with the rainbow.
Okay.
the um the the questioners in that instance when you have Jews hiding in your house and you know >> that if you say if you tell the truth those Jews are going to be carted off to a concentration camp and gassed in that instance would the truth be better than a lie not is a is a lie immoral right >> yeah well I think in that particular instance I could just evade giving an answer so it wouldn't be a true dichotomy in that situation No, no, no.
I I I don't think that's how the Nazis worked.
>> I'm not relying upon how the Nazis worked in order to do what the right thing is. So, it's not You are confusing a goal-based ought with a moral ought.
The moral ought dictates regardless of situations. Goal-based is just whatever I make up in my mind and I want to adhere to.
>> He's trying to force you into the decision. He's trying to say, "Gun to your head.
Yes or no? He's probably >> That's not a true dichotomy.
>> Well, that's the issue you would you would raise then. Yeah.
>> You never read The Hiding Place then.
>> Well, maybe. [laughter] >> But in The Hiding Place, I'll give I'll give you an I'll give you an example.
So, in the hiding place, um Corey Tenboom, when the Nazis came to her door, uh they had a place underneath the table, a compartment where the Jews were hidden. And he said, "Yeah." And she said, "Yes, they are under the table."
When the Nazis came and they went and looked under the curtain of the of the table and then they were not there immediately under the table and then so they laughed and went even though she told them the truth in a limited sense, sure, but the truth was given.
>> Excellent. And that was that was very quickwitted of her. But what if you pause it for a sec?
>> I don't I don't even know that she had the intent of not telling. So for example, >> go ahead.
Was there another situation in the Old Testament where somebody lied during a war time?
>> Rahab.
>> So when in the book of Joshua when Israel came to take the promised land after Moses died, they went to Jericho and Rahab was the person who put the red thread in her window so that they would uh signify something. I forget what it was whether you know that they were um the spies could stay there or whatever.
And she lied to the soldiers. Uh but that again there's no just because something happened in the Bible doesn't make it a description of a moral thing because you have to already presuppose that this is like a fictional book and Rahab is a protagonist and not that Rahab was by the way who was a prostitute an already sinful person who used a sinful means in order to get good ends but we know from Romans 6 that or is it Romans 3 where it says let us not do evil so that good may come I think that's Romans 3:8 Right. Paul was like, "Don't let us keep um doing sin so grace may abound."
That's ridiculous. That's not practical.
Right.
>> Well, it's evil. You know, it's He says that condemnation is just >> um >> Right. So, we Right. We We live in grace. We enjoy grace, but we don't abuse it. Right. That's kind of what it is.
>> Yeah. But it's also don't justify the bad things you do because you think like something good's going to come out of it. Well, yeah.
>> Yeah. We are not Christians are not outcome based people. We are um ethicsbased people. We have, you know, we have rules that were answerful.
Answer answerful. We are answering to Missing Mod says everyone is sinful.
That is correct. When I go over now, n now mud, when I go over the passages that make you particularly uncomfortable, I am only claiming what the Bible claims, which is those particular sins that are constant unrepented lifestyles in Galatians 5:18-21, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, and ra Revelation 2:18. Those and I there's one I think in 1 Timothy as well, but those are specifically enumerated. Those are a notch up. Not all sins, right, are uh those lifestyles that will send you to hell. But those are I think that's purely I think it's pretty defensible and not unreasonable at all. Now >> this is okay zil this is what I've been dealing with. If I list out these verses that say if you are in this lifestyle you'll go to hell. Like people think that I'm claiming I don't sin anymore and that is like a total straw man. It's just not fair.
>> Okay. Okay. Well, >> anyway, >> you can talk about that with mod and >> All right. I won't I won't put you in the middle.
>> You aired it out just then.
>> Monkey in the middle. Monkey in the middle.
>> Yeah.
>> I don't think she had the intent of misleading [laughter] necessarily, but in the case of >> Well, then then the consequence is kind of irrelevant to the question, right?
Because like like like like if she if she didn't intend to deceive the Nazis >> and Ma it's true all sin sends you to hell but some lifestyles bar you from heaven which is the difference because everybody has sinned and earned hell.
But for those who are truly repentant they're not doing those things listed in those passages as a lifesty lifestyle.
Now you're an ape. Okay. I don't talk I don't talk to >> Hold on. Okay. Okay. Okay. Now everybody understand there are Christians who are more it's it's like grace versus legalism.
>> It's not legalism, dude.
>> Well, no. Well, that's fine. I don't know. Well, you might be put in that category. I don't know. Is that what's going on?
>> Okay. Was Paul a legalist?
>> Uh probably. I don't No, no. He He preached great.
>> This is not looking good for you for our debate coming up. If you're saying Paul was probably a legalist, that's not going to >> No. No. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. No.
I don't know. I'm going to have to think about it. But no, there is that spectrum. Anyways, it was my >> Okay.
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived, neither fornicators, nor adulterers, nor idolattors, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you, but you are washed. You are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the spirit of God.
Operative word being were.
Such were some of you past tense.
>> So we would be regenerate with the Holy Spirit working in us and therefore we would be working to not be living in those.
>> And then we can go because this just comes up every single time and I keep getting told opinions I don't actually have. So I'm just going to keep bringing up these passages.
Um now the works of the flesh are manifest which are these adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, rellings, and such like of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance. Against such there is no law. And they that are Christs have crucified the flesh with affections and lusts. If we live in the spirit, let us also walk in the spirit.
Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another. So that those are two of the passages, but I'll just leave it there.
>> And her intent was actually to give up.
>> Okay. Can can you pause it for a sec?
So all right. So some might say, and it seems Ma is saying, then who can get to heaven?
And there's a passage well in what is uh >> Jesus said it right with God all things are possible. After he said the camel through the eye of the needle they said then who can get into heaven? He said with man this is impossible but with God all things are possible. So my point is if people have struggles with things they shouldn't be struggling too bad with these things but uh >> so we can make the two >> specifically bad. Here's how we can Well, they are they are especially bad because they will borrow you from heaven. But those are specific ones, not general. But every time I have this talk with Ma, she makes it as general as possible and say, "Well, you said we're all going to hell." Or, "You're saying you're perfect." And it's like, those are both misrepresentations. I'm saying exactly what those passages are saying.
Those specific sins, if lived out, will bar you from heaven. And that's not a self-righteousness thing because you would have no righteousness. I have no righteousness. We have to be born again.
Right? Because otherwise we're all going to be doing any of any number of those things, right?
>> But if we're born of the spirit, >> we are made new creatures. And as Hebrews 12 teaches, we if we are really Christs, we will be disciplined in those in those instances and brought back to the path >> at varying levels.
>> Yeah. [snorts] She says, "I'll stop.
Sorry. Just move on. You're wrong, though." Well, [sighs] okay. Mod, you're gonna make me do this.
Hold on a second.
>> Okay. Well, we I think we covered the difference. Um, let's see.
Um, how can we solve this?
>> Okay, here here's the solution. When Christ saves you, you're born again.
People who are born again who have a new nature behave differently. People of a new nature behave differently than when they had an old nature. That's why it's talking about >> um like like putting off the old man and putting on the new. You know, we have the mind of Christ. You know, you've been washed.
>> Mhm. The things in those verses are fleshly things. And that's what we we already know we should be getting rid of and dying to ourselves.
>> Yes. But we can't do it with our own strength.
>> We need God's strength. We are powerless to do it in ourselves. We need to rely upon God to do that in us.
>> That's why >> that's why Jesus says in John 3, famous chapter John 3, Jesus answered, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born of water and the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
>> Well, that's interesting because that's what Paul was getting at is you will not inherit the kingdom of God if you are in these sins. So the reconciliation is if you're born again, you will not fall back into that lifestyle. And if you do, you will repent before you die. If there is any regression whatsoever, you will repent before you die. But you know, uh let's go to verse eight. The wind bloweth where it listeth. Meaning this the Holy Spirit goes where it wants to.
Or sorry, he wants to I need to stop.
Yeah. [laughter] Uh and and thou hearest the sound thereof, but not tell whence it cometh. And whether it go, so is everyone that is born of the Holy Spirit.
>> Right. Okay. Can you look at the mod's latest message?
>> So, she thinks that you're telling her she's not saved. I think >> I She keeps telling that >> the Now you're telling me I'm not saved.
Okay.
>> I don't want Mod to think that >> at all.
>> Okay. I get that. I'm But I didn't ever go up to her and be like, "You're not saved." And I'm not all I'm doing is reading these verses. Every time I read these verses, she gets upset >> and I don't and and then and then I don't know what to do. And she says, "You're wrong on repentance, too."
>> Mud, I'm going to have to do a separate stream on this. We're going to tackle this no time. [sighs] >> So, yeah.
>> Be taken to a concentration camp.
>> Like, in that instance, are you saying that the truth was better than a lie?
>> Well, we're not in we're actually not at discussing whether the truth is better or lie. And now we're discussing consequences under the guise of talking about whether the truth is better than a lie. Because if we were saying the truth is better than a lie, then that would refer universally and therefore the truth would also apply to the Nazis meaning that they ought not kill the Jews. So in that case, >> agreed.
>> I thought that was just taken as given, >> right? Which can >> contradiction of the model because then if truth is always preferential to a lie, then it would also be preferential to the Nazis which need to repent from their Judy hating.
So you can't work it for a sec.
>> Missing mod, do you think I'm trying to like make you unsaved?
>> No. No. I think she's just in her feelings about it for a sec. Um, no. I wanted to pause and say Rex, you pointed out in in this debate in the video you're watching.
>> Yeah.
>> You pointed out the complexity he added to the situation by introducing Yatsis to the situation. Because the truth is that the yatsis should not be doing this in the first place. So them saying, "Well, if they tell you to do it, we're going to get you in a gotcha here." No, you got to roll that back like you rolled it back to the big bang with pure material determinism. You got to go back to what the truth is. The the Yazis should not have been there in the first place doing that. So actually causally you don't have to cooperate with them at all because you don't want to be helping them on their agenda which is evil.
Right.
>> Yeah. And then when I punched uh I punched the scenario into Grock the Grock conversation where I've been working on my argument. And one of the things it said is if I get to decide when to tell the truth and not to tell the truth that makes me the arbiter and not truth itself of when I should tell the truth and not. And I thought that was a valid point.
Okay. So, >> right.
>> No, it's not. It's un No, because it's a universal. It's a universal. We're talking about always now. It's a universal. It's not a particular in the sense of depend. See, you're you're importing the goal dependent model, which I'm not doing because I said always, >> right? And so, and and my response is not necessarily because sometimes a lie is better than the truth. [laughter] And I would no >> I I would argue I would argue that in an instance where the lie >> first of all that yeah I pretty much I pretty much laid it out. It's goalbased his model and to say a lie is better than the truth. Then if that is true, then why ought I not have a continuous set of lies engineered to get me a certain result and then say that lies are therefore the same as the truth or equal value in truth because I have a goal and you have a goal. Like how do you if if if if it's if a lie is better than the truth then if I reject his proposition that a lie is better than the truth would his statement be objectively better than mine? Should I adopt his statement?
Because if a if a lie can be rather than the truth, then I I can just say, "No, I'll just say the opposite of what you said is true." And then he wouldn't have any leg to stand on to say that I'm wrong, >> right? Because their truth is relative, >> right?
>> Uh yeah. Yeah. I think in Shiva's case, he questions what truth would even mean, you know? So, but then he also has his opinions which he would call you know he would think people who who yeah he would say that people who are disagreeing with him were still wrong though >> right >> going to save someone's life that in that instance the lie is better than the truth.
>> Got it. So, so you would argue that the lie is better than the truth in order for a great priority. Great. Why does that lie why does that life have [snorts] value in order to recommend us to one choice in one belief over the other? Uh, that's um what what do you mean one life over the other?
>> Oh, no, no, sorry. Let me back Let me back that up. Let's say let's say let's say I could tell them the truth or I can tell them the lie. Let's say I could tell them they're in the closet or I can tell them they're not in the closet or whatever.
>> Why does their well-being and life serve as the tiebreaker to my moral choices as to what I ought to do?
>> I mean, it seems to be fairly universal that life is valued.
>> What? Absolutely not. I'm throwing my babies overboard every single day. Me and my objective Viking buddies, we throw our one second old babies into the water to see if they can survive.
>> But you do give them a one second year old one second go bl.
>> It's hard to say one second old without saying year. I don't know [laughter] why.
>> Yeah. A one second year old. They're gonna turn. They're going to grow up real quick in them water sucker.
>> Yeah.
And that's moral, right, guys?
That's moral, right?
>> It's moral to you, but not to me.
>> What? Not to you?
>> No.
>> But we can agree to disagree because you're a Viking and I'm a Mongol. And then we just have, you know, [laughter] >> we just have different methods. That's all. Right. [laughter] >> Different methods.
You know, different strokes for different pillagings.
>> Exactly. Exactly. You guys just don't understand the ways. But you know >> the ways.
>> Yep.
>> Like valued but that's but different than valuable because now because goals are subjective, right?
>> Yeah. Of course. All goals are subjective. Yeah.
>> All goals are subjective. So his dilemma falls apart because it's no longer a dilemma of what I would do. Now it's just whatever I feel like doing, whether I feel like ratting them out or whether I feel like uh lying or whether I feel like not lying. So it's all equivalent.
Reex, you need a pair of aviators. I I think I have them in my car.
>> Join the club. They're the hater blockers from mods. Stole it from mod.
>> Hold on. Hold on.
>> All right, guys. You You called for it.
You know we need it. We got to get the full aviator scopes going, sucker. Okay, we're dialing it in on the aviator crew, sucker. And you know what? Reex and mod are going to be fine. It's fine. Okay, don't even just don't even >> RX isn't even here anymore. It's uh >> Oh [ __ ] >> Here we go. Hey, >> what's your normative authority? You will respect my normative authoritar.
[laughter] >> Exactly.
Exactly, dude.
>> I think my ears are crooked. [laughter] There we go. Yeah, these aren't even my aviators. Uh the what is it? The Ray-B bands that I found in the Whole Foods parking lot one day. They're all scratched up. I think those are in my car. But >> so you stole those from a pilot.
>> Give me those. Yeah. [laughter] Great. So then their life doesn't necessarily serve as a tiebreaker between whether I tell them the truth or a lie.
>> Not maybe not.
>> Furthermore, >> all right, I'm going to play that one more time because I don't think atheists have a good way out of this one that I've heard yet.
>> Valued >> like >> valued, but that's but different than valuable because now because goals are subjective, right?
>> Yeah. Of course, all goals are subjective. Yeah.
>> Great. So then their life doesn't necessarily serve as a tiebreaker between whether I tell them the truth or a lie.
>> That's it right there, man. Furthermore, >> furthermore, uh by telling the truth to the Nazis on where the Jews were hiding, you would have told the Jews that you're hiding that you would have protected them. So by telling the truth to the Nazis, you would inadvertently be then uh telling a lie to the Jews that you said that you would protect.
>> Yeah. So I should be getting involved.
So, uh, Shiva actually thought that was a good point. I'm I'm gonna get out of this costume because I can't do these.
[laughter] Okay, you guys made him cost. [laughter] See, he cares about you guys. See, he had a request. You know, he he throw you a bone here or there if you're lucky, suckers. Huh?
>> [laughter] >> If you're lucky, is getting out of a costume. He's going to come back on the with the Velociraptor suit. [laughter] >> Yeah, that I hope that never happens. It was bad enough doing what I just did.
[laughter] >> No, that was cool.
>> I maintain that. I I I wouldn't I wouldn't take that approach. [laughter] So Shiva liked that point. It is creative and it is interesting that in the case there is such a case of a lesser of two evils when those are the only two options. Um but then again I'd still say that lying would be immoral and therefore I'd be precluded from doing it. I would I would just obfuscate the best I could and try and try and see if I can jiujitsu away from directly answering their question. And if I can't, I died with my integrity. That's it.
>> So that would be definitely a prioritization, which prioritization does mean that you have a moral map. So even if I even if I took ter position, which I'm not taking ter position necessarily, but if I did take ter position, that relies on a pre-existing moral map that objectively guides my way of thinking and living.
>> Sure.
>> So that means that when when we So here's here's here's the difference.
Here's here's a here's a difference I want to talk about because we're talking about ultimacy really >> in truth and lies.
>> Um so so I would still say that I I know you're not but um because you're using a goal-based model but if I'm using a universal model so when you're saying that oh sometimes it's better to tell a lie that would mean that there is a principle within the universe that would be contradictory to why we ought to prefer the truth and so the two would cancel out each other.
>> Not in the universe.
>> Oh then where does it exist? I mean in one's mind.
>> Okay. So what makes one's mind um the locust of what somebody ought to do?
Isn't that viciously circular when the when the contrary is available?
>> Locus of >> what and all of our actions determined by our minds.
>> Mhm. So but do we have rationality to choose one or the other A, B or C?
>> I mean yeah most of us I think. Yeah.
>> Okay. So in the case of whether you would open the closet or not, you would say that there is an object you if you use reason to determine that their lives are worth lying for then you're saying that prior to your reasoning about that there was an objective value by which you used to make a correct decision.
>> No, >> he is forced to say no. And I knew that going into it.
>> He he cannot say yes. He cannot afford to say yes. Hey Jess, >> run that point back. Reax, run.
>> Run it back. Want to do it again.
>> Yeah, make that point again, dude.
>> It's like tell Tubby's here. Play it again.
>> Okay. So, in the case of whether you would open the closet or not, you would say that there is an object you if you use reason to determine that their lives are worth lying for, then you're saying that prior to your reasoning about that, there was an objective value by which you used to make a correct decision.
No.
>> No. How significant is that? No. He can't point to an objective value system. So >> therefore, he can't justify his rationality because in order to have rationality, you have to have objective fixed points by which to reach a conclusion. And if th and if you're if the things that you value are not objectively valued and you use your reason to determine that the things you value aren't objectively valued, you nullify your entire way of thinking >> because it's subjectivity and they just don't want to admit that.
>> That's the problem.
>> That's the major issue. They're lying about it honestly. They're lying to themselves and to us and you guys got to stop doing it. You're embarrassing yourselves.
Robin Webster says he is not forced to say no. He's being honest that there is no objective morality.
>> Then then his whole yatsi scenario has no point whatsoever and is kind of a just a bedtime story at best because we're not actually we're not actually making a dilemma because dilemmas in this case would require moral considerations. But moral considerations are moot and they're no different than what do you want for dinner tonight.
>> Right. Right. And we have to go to those absurd absurdities to show them the absurdity of their worldview, which no objective morality is absolutely absurd worldview. That's why I'm an objective Viking. I throw one secondy old babies over the side, the port and the starboard. Both of them.
>> That's why people who who like say they're subjectivist, they also at the same time feel this sense of superiority to people who say, "Oh, I would let the yachts in." They feel like, "Oh, no. My way is actually better. I have reasons for my subjective. [laughter] I can't even say it. I have reasons for my subjective point of view that are better than your subjective point of view objectively."
Like, yeah. The closest you could probably get to anything like this, which I still think is question begging, is Stefan Molyneu's universally preferable behavior. uh which ba which basically like what it's kind of golden ruleesque.
It's like whatever however you would want to be treated you ought to treat others and then because you would ought to do it that way. If you did anything in a way that you would not want to be treated then therefore that would be immoral by definition. Therefore giving a fixed point. So you uh would be wrong for ending someone's life because you wouldn't want your life ended and universally people don't want their lives ended. Therefore, by virtue of that, it becomes moral.
>> Right? Well, me as an objective Viking, I'm a warrior. And if I'm not thrown in the ocean one second from my birth and survive, then I'm not worthy. And and I survived. Okay? And I'm going to do that to every 1 second year old baby going forth. I had to do it and they have to, too. And you think that's moral suckers?
Jess White says, "I've known Terry for a long time. He isn't saying no here because he's forced his position." This isn't Terak saying no. His position is it's remained the same a long time. He's just being honest about what he thinks.
I agree that he's being honest about what he thinks.
>> I'm not disagreeing and saying he's dishonest.
>> What?
>> Do you think I'm strong?
>> I guess I guess I >> uh you're apparently you're not like >> I am.
>> I believe that Shiva is consistent. And by the way, just white, uh, this is not a critique of Terak. Teriyak and I are good friends and we're on the same side as far as this goes. Um, yeah. So, Shiva has to say no. But the problem with saying no is that any other moral judgment, which by the way he does make later on, has equal value as my moral judgment. Even if my moral judgment is the exact contrary of his. So when you say we are straw manning BS this suck a dishonest representation of our position then I mean tell me what subjective means without having it you know only bind yourself and nobody else.
Sorry Zil Robin Webster is here to wake you up from your dream from being a Viking.
>> Oh my goodness.
I I don't think there is any such thing as an objective value. I don't even know what that means.
>> Okay. So, an objective value would mean any uh trader attribute of a thing that would be prescriptive to our thoughts and actions, >> right? But what makes it what makes it objective?
>> What makes an aught? Yeah. Are you asking in my world?
>> No, no, no, no, no. What makes it objective?
Not >> Yeah. Because >> Rob Webster says he don't have to say no. It's the answer that's the most intellectually honest. So if I gave the most intellectually dishonest answer, would that be objectively worse than the most intellectually honest answer?
Jess White says Terak is a good dude. I missed him as his hurt. I thought it was Terak talking about objective morality.
Uh no. Uh Terriak was actually on my side with this and Terak was saying that he thinks in the case of like the Yazis come to your house to take away the Udin, then uh you uh you have a lie on your hands either way because you lied to the Uden to say you'd protect them and then now you're going to lie to the Nazis because either way you would have to produce a lie. But in in my worldview, um I would just obuscate the best I knew how to at the time.
I would do my best to deceive them and get them out of there.
>> So you would lie.
>> Yeah.
>> To them. Yeah. Because the situation has become more complex.
>> Shiva from what I've seen does often change his positions and does contradict himself. That is Yeah. He will be saying that God is evil later on in the stream.
By the way, Rob Webster says, "Rix, you are annoying as jockey."
>> Oh boy.
Um, I didn't know she watched basketball. Uh, is Joach still playing for the Nuggets? Um, [laughter] >> dad joke. I'm not even a dad, but uh, yeah, >> it it comes with their age. I'm the same age as you.
>> What makes a truth objective?
>> No. What makes the value objective >> in my worldview or in your worldview?
Right.
How Okay. Missing Mod says, "How about telling them no, as in no, they're not here." Well, that or telling him no. No, I'm not giving them up.
>> I think obfuscation, even though it's really low success rate, is still higher success rate than just saying, "No, I'm not giving them up."
Uh, >> or no, no. Or she's saying like just tell them no, they're not here. You know, get >> that would be the lie that I would do, right?
Give them your car and tell them to run or something.
>> That that could be the the distraction or whatever. Yeah.
>> Are you hiding the yoden in your house?
Um, >> hey, you want my car?
>> I guess that would work.
>> Oh. Oh my goodness, guys. Okay, guys.
Come on.
>> Oh. Oh. Oh. Not offering your car to the yachts, but saying uh that give them give them your car.
>> Yeah. I mean, the problem is I'm sure there's gonna be checkpoints on the roads.
>> Oh, I see. I see. I see. I see. I see.
Okay.
>> Jess White says, "I've had debates with Terry about lying. He does believe lying in certain situations is the right thing to do, so that doesn't surprise me."
Yeah. Well, Terak and I have differences, but I like Terak.
>> Yeah.
>> Yes. Because because >> and I like Shiva, too.
>> It corresponds affirmatively to the mind of God in my worldview. My question is how outside of that, how can somebody who is atheistic determine how to use rationality if they're not value mapping?
>> They are value mapping.
>> How are they using reason to value map?
>> Uh yeah, I would guess so. Some of them >> So if they're using reason to value map, that means a reason leads them to objective values by which they're using a rational system to determine what is the correct and incorrect way of >> No, no, no. Sorry, sorry. Objective means independent of one's opinions, right? That's what the word objective means.
>> Not according to me, it doesn't. Okay.
[laughter] >> He's confusing himself, man, is what he's doing.
>> Yeah. Yeah. So, but I again, there are forks in the logic here that he has to take give a yes or no to. And I'm going to I'm going to back that up to determine what is the correct and incorrect way.
>> No, no, no. Sorry. Sorry. Objective means independent of one's opinions, right? That's what the word objective means.
>> Can you reason subject? If we reason subjectively and my reasoning is the exact contrary of yours, are both equally correct?
>> Not necessarily. It depends on what's being reasoned.
>> Okay. So, it's possible that not all um that some ways of reasoning are superior to others.
>> Superior. It depends on what one is trying to achieve.
>> Okay. So, it's >> but but let's just say that I agree with that. Let's just say that I agree with that that that some forms of reasoning are like certainly if you're um uh truth tracking for example, I would agree that um certain forms of reasoning are superior to others. Right.
>> Right. Like I would argue that if you're trying to track the truth that um deductive reasoning is superior than going based on a gut hunch >> according to who?
>> I call it gut punch because I misheard him. So be prepared for that.
>> Oh nice.
>> But yeah, so I I I follow up on that part.
>> Mhm.
>> Okay. So but in that case if I said, "Oh, I want the gut punch and then you want the reasoning. What's the tiebreaker between those two that makes you prefer reasoning over the gut punch?
>> Gut hunch.
>> Sorry, gut hunch.
>> Same [laughter] thing.
>> Um, I mean, for me it'd be that I don't trust my hunches because they're quite often wrong like to be incorrect.
>> Okay. So, >> and I I and I don't like being incorrect.
>> Okay.
>> Which is a shame because I'm incorrect so often. [laughter] We know >> life would be easier if you enjoyed being incorrect, I suppose. But but let's say whatever your definition of incorrect is is my definition of correct. And what's the tiebreaker between yours and my position?
>> What do you mean what's the tiebreaker?
>> Um what is the grounds by which you could blame me for not taking your position and you could affirm your position as better than mine?
>> I mean blame is an interesting word there. Um, >> it is like that. I would I would blame you. I suppose for me like like the tiebreaker in terms of what I'm what I'm going to do, right? Cuz that's the only thing that I have kind of control over is um I suppose like how how persuasive you are.
>> Okay.
>> What?
>> I'm a very persuasive Viking.
I >> Do you know how persuasive I am? Rex, >> you're gonna pull up on me, sucker.
>> You know how persuasive I am?
>> Okay. Uh, so it the tiebreaker would be how persuaded I am. That's begging the question. I'm asking why you think something is a tiebreaker. What is the value of the thing that would persuade you one way or the other or ought to persuade? Because and even then you would have to admit as a subjectivist kind of person, you're whatever persuades you is only subjective to you and doesn't necessarily matter to other people. But if it persuades you, then it means that something outside of your present understanding changes your thinking because you think it is superior regardless of what other people think, which would be a form of objective reasoning.
>> Anyway, confusing to them. I I don't know >> like depending on my state of mind that I'm, you know, swayed by emotional arguments. So, like I might find an emotional argument particularly compelling. I mean, that hasn't tended to be the case so far, but you know, it's not outside the realms of possibility.
>> Sure. Can you judge goals like somebody's goal is better than another person's goal or the contrary of a goal is bad and the affirmation of said goal is good. Is that possible to to compare goals and have one goal objectively fall short of the value of another goal or is that not possible?
>> No, I don't think I mean I think it's possible for for you to subjectively do that.
>> I have a goal.
>> Okay. No, actually yes. I I think you >> All right. Let's back that up because he changed his mind pretty quick and I I I wanna I want to parse and pick out what that was.
>> Another person's goal.
>> Sure. Can you judge goals like somebody's goal is better than another person's goal or the contrary of a goal is bad and the affirmation of said goal is good. Is that possible to to compare goals and have one goal objectively fall short of the value of another goal or is that not possible? No, I don't think I mean I think it's possible for for you to subjectively do that.
>> So that's consistent.
That would be consistent if you stayed on that path.
But wait, there's more.
>> But again, like Okay. No, actually, yes, I I think you can because there's such a thing because there's more than one type of objectivity, right? So like there's instrumental objectivity, >> right? Okay. But that would be descriptive, not prescriptive, right?
That would just describe the steps necessary in the physical world to achieve something. That would describe the value of the thing they're achieving.
>> Well, no, no, that is prescriptive.
>> Nice.
>> Interesting.
>> If you if if you need to follow those steps, that's a prescription.
>> But but [clears throat] if the sun needs to shine, it must continue to >> The sun doesn't need to shine.
>> Who are you to say what the sun does and doesn't need to do? Yeah, sucker.
>> That's all subjective to the sun. Leave the sun alone. It's the sun's business.
But what I'm saying is if if you take a He's not a physicalist. He doesn't even know what he is for sure when it comes to metaphysics. But if you took a physicalist model of the universe and everything was just nature, then um the sun shining is just as natural as us doing what we want to do as animals, right? It just comes down to the chemical composition achieving reactions through continued chemical activity in our brains, which is no different than any other physics whatsoever. It might look different to us or feel different to us, but what does it matter? We're just worm food walking around waiting for that day where we become a banquet >> for the worms.
>> Delicious.
>> Delicious. And then all of a sudden, the Vikings will come and have their worm banquet, I guess. I don't know.
>> Yeah. Is the sunshining moral, guys? Is that moral?
>> It's not. It's The sun's shining in and of itself is not moral, but I would be immoral to say that the sun does not shine because that would be a lie and I know better.
>> How dare you?
>> Oh, okay.
>> Yeah.
>> Well, based on that's a that's deductive or no, that's uh No, no, no. Inductive because you don't know if the sun's going to shine tomorrow.
>> So, I think Chapingo was saying that there it was called abduction. In that case there's there is inductive reasoning but he he corrected me and said it was actually should be called the problem of abduction.
>> Okay. Sorry we I don't want to ra >> sorry.
>> Anyway okay but but but if we're if we're hold on let me finish here. If we are merely Shiva if we're merely physical beings right then all all we're all we're describing here is physical circumstances that result in following physical phenomen. Um, I'm not sure that we are merely physical beings. I'm I'm like I don't know that I'm a materialist.
>> Fair enough. You're not taking a stance on that.
>> Well, kind of. I think I might be a physicalist maybe in that >> because >> All right. I'm going to ask AI what the difference is between physicalism and materialism because it doesn't it's not apparent to me face value, >> right? Because material >> maybe he maybe he thinks that the personhood is something that's emergent from matter but in materialism no such thing occurs. Physicalism and materialism are largely synonymous and often used interchangeably in contemporary philosophy to express the view that everything is really ultimately physical. However, physicalism is technically broader encompassing not just solid matter but also energy, spaceime, physical laws and forces. Whereas traditional materialism is primary restricted to tangible matter.
>> So just fancy um materialism with physics and stuff.
>> I suppose I suppose >> I don't know what consciousness is like if you were to ask me is is consciousness material or immaterial like I wouldn't be able to give you an answer, right? Um, it doesn't like it seems like my mind is immaterial, but um, >> put it in a jar.
>> Where?
>> If it's material, put it in a jar.
>> You can't put your mind in a jar.
>> You know what I'm saying?
>> I have an approximation of what you're saying. My point is the mind is metaphysical.
>> Yeah.
>> They can't make an argument that it's physical. You can't put it into a jar.
>> I would I would think that the mind would be probably in the spiritual plane because that's to do with the person, >> right? That's my point.
>> Yeah. But metaphysical makes it sound like you're talking about mathematics or like the laws of logic or >> Well, that's how we describe consciousness that would be in the metaphysical realm. I guess I would say >> real. But um I'm not aware of of a consciousness existing without a body. Like I've I've never met a consciousness. I'm I'm not saying it's impossible. I'm just saying that I'm I'm I'm not aware of it. And I tend >> I I I tend to use the supervenience model.
So like my current thinking and this is you know provisional cuz all of my views are provisional. Um is is that um something immaterial can >> hey certainty exists. Do you want to pop up? You want you want me to drop the link for you if you have not met Certainty Exists. He plays a lot of good videos with our lectures by Greg Bonson who was a 1980s to 1990s uh reformed Presbyterian. uh Christian philosopher and debater and uh he's got some good debates out there. Uh certainty exists.
Uh he goes by JG and uh he he's got some good things to say on this matter.
>> So uh yeah, if you if you want to hop up, I'll drop the link in the chat.
>> Can supervene on the material. Um like like an example of that in physics would be magnetic fields, right? which are themselves immaterial but which supervene on on the material. And whilst you can't say that the material causes the immaterial, you can say that a change in the like um underlying material brings about a change in in the immaterial. Like for example, >> have you heard materialists talk about okay so there's magnetic forces, there's magnetic fields.
Have you heard any talk about that being physical? Because I was just allowing it for the sake of the argument because it it would it doesn't affect my point one way or the other.
>> Okay. It's another rabbit trail. My bad.
>> No, you can you can pontificate about it. That's fine. I just I don't I don't I don't claim to know. I think >> I think I tend to think of I tend to think of charges as coming from matter because you know different particles like atomic particles subatomic particles have different charges and so therefore those >> but those charges themselves aren't made of matter they just emanate from the matter >> right anyways I love nature >> I'm not a scientist Aiden would probably know more than me on this topic [snorts] >> yeah God made nature amazing and science is the stud the attempt to study and understand it.
>> Yeah. All right. I am going to drop the link for certainty exists.
Yeah, we're we're going to be on we're going to be on for a bit. Rev. Rust is supposed to come back at some point too.
>> Okay. I am good for probably another hour at least around.
>> That's fine. I I was planning on flying solo anyway, so having friends along the way is part of the journey. Yeah.
>> Awesome.
>> Yeah. Um Yeah.
>> This is a good discussion.
>> Yeah. Um this is this is the biggest this has so far been the biggest test of my argument because obviously Matt Delhunty and Seth Andrews had nothing.
So they had to switch back to old faithful which is mute button and yes or no to to my uh oversimplified questions.
So >> at a painting that's evoking a particular kind of quality of beauty within your experience, right? And then you you like someone comes along and then changes the brush strokes or adds more paint or takes paint away from the painting, then um then your experience of of beauty will also change. So, and so yeah, it it seems to me like because I don't know what what consciousness is. Like it could be that it's um somehow completely like discrete from our physical forms.
Um but without any evidence to support that view uh it's not one that I can um uh claim with confidence. Yeah. So so I'm not I wouldn't describe myself as a materialist but I might be a physicalist.
>> Okay. In what way would you say that uh the goal-based uh ethic is prescriptive?
Would you say it's one to one the same as prescriptions of moral standards?
>> It depends. If you're trying to achieve a particular goal and you need to follow certain steps to to attain that goal, then there's a type of objectivity called instrumental objectivity.
>> Um, yeah. And in terms of morals, a good example of that, I mean, I would argue the same is is that this is the same for Christianity. Um, but Buddhist the the the Buddhist ethical framework.
The precepts are not goals in themselves. They're a means to an end.
Right? If you want to become a Buddha, you have to abide by the precepts because without sticking to the ethical guidelines, those ethical training principles, you won't be able to attain to a calm mind. You won't be able to meditate and you won't be able to contribute insight.
>> Right? So in >> right so you know again >> who cares I'm a >> he has these goals.
The question is, are the goals objectively moral or are they rational?
Are they objectively justified?
>> I'm a freaking objective Viking suckers and I don't care about your silly willymnilly enlightenment. You think I care?
>> Silly Willy Zillyilly enlightenment and zilly vanilla.
>> You think I care, suckers? I'm throwing babies overboard on the dailies.
When are you going to get your horn hat?
[laughter] >> Right. I should, right?
>> You probably should.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> Order to become a Buddha, you objectively have to follow the ethical precepts.
>> Sure. But the ethical precepts you wouldn't consider to be mechanistic.
Like if I want to build a car, I need to make an engine. It wouldn't be like a it would be an actual failing of a standard by which I become blameworthy. Whereas I don't think like if I went to build a car but I failed to build a car because I didn't have the knowledge I would be guilty of something >> right. No uh uh no it is exactly like that.
>> Huh? Oh, >> so I'm guilty if I want to build something and because I've not used the optimized means that I incur moral guilt in the same way that this goal-based ethics system is supposed to be fully explanatory of everything that is moral.
>> I'm just as confused as you, dude. I I can't understand it either.
>> Could I could I get forgiveness from the car that I failed to build? [laughter] Is there a justice system where I go to car jail for failing to build a car?
>> I don't know, man. It's It's so confusing to me.
>> Does the car get reparation anyway?
>> Really?
>> I mean, like like I wouldn't like I um guilt I mean, first of all, like guilt I think is an entirely useless um and self-referential emotion. Guilt is not the same as remorse.
Right.
>> I Yeah, I I'm talking about what we talked about earlier with the T jump was the status of guilt rather than the feeling of guilt because I think you can be guilty without feeling guilty, >> right? So all the time.
>> Yeah. Yeah.
>> If you if you want to use that word, I think that's probably just as good.
>> Yeah. I mean Okay. Um >> that was good.
>> Uh sorry. Could you >> Yeah. So I'm Okay. So, so I I you said that you need to obtain certain ethical norms in your life in order to achieve becoming a Buddha. Correct. But I'm saying that you wouldn't consider those ethics a mechanistic form of ought like a like an a goal-based ought in terms of you you crank the wheel and then you get a result. But you would say that >> you would.
>> So it's mechanical pinball machine.
>> It's not it's not obligatory. It is just descriptive of this action has this effect, >> right? You you put the quarter in the machine, you twist the knob, and you get the little thing with the little ring pop in it, and you're happy. And that's moral, right?
>> Because you had a goal and you followed through with the goal. The problem is there's no uh accountability for failing goals in this model. is just like you know to say that I have failed to achieve it just doesn't map on to what we understand morality to be with justice and forgiveness and how those two things can coexist in the same universe objectively I mean >> go even saying goals is begging the maybe is that begging the question of them assuming that their goals are moral that that people will choose the correct goals >> I don't know if it's begging the question but it is leaving something unanswered.
>> It it is at least leaving it unanswered.
It's like why should I care about what the goal is? What what makes a goal and the contrary of a goal equal, >> right?
>> Like and and if the goal and the contrary of goal are equal, you've nullified whatever you'd want to call morality in any sense that would teach us anything, >> right? Because Oh, go ahead. Oh, because as you pointed out the value system, they need to ground their value system.
How do you evaluate things? How can you compare two goals with each other? And what is the arbiter to decide which is better? I have my Viking goals. We need uh strength in babies surviving the ocean. Okay? And that's my goals. And they can't say that their goals are better than mine.
>> They can't. If you if you don't abide by the ethical in the Buddhist system, um the kind of very first step is actually generosity, right? That that actually sits underneath morals, right? But generally speaking, um there's a kind of three-fold like model um of Buddhist practice um which is um ethics, meditation, insight, right? You can't in the Buddhist system, you cannot cultivate insight >> without meditation.
>> It's so cute.
>> You can't That's adorable.
>> Him talking about his love for the Buddhist system. I just think it's really cute and it's just, you know, sweet and I'm glad he he likes that system and that's really cute. That's great. I don't care about it. I'm going to plunder the entire tea of his entire thing, you know. I'm going to take all his stuff and stuff like that.
>> Well, that would be not his preferences, but subjectively speaking, you know, there was no real tiebreaker because yeah, some goals aren't better than others.
>> Um, achieve a stable meditation practice that allows for insight if your mind is agitated. And in according to the Buddhist system, acting unethically agitates the mind. So yes, it's mechanistic.
>> Oh, that's a I didn't I don't know if I catch that the first time, but acting unethically agitates the mind. Why does acting unethically agitate the mind unless truth is prescriptive?
Unless there is a way that we ought to live that coincides with what we are.
>> And that goes with God's law written on our hearts. Right.
>> Yeah. And it goes against us being created in God's image. And therefore, sin, like lying, is going to negatively affect us. It's going to go against our purpose. It's going to go against our design. It's going to damage us.
>> Yep.
I believe the base conscious conscience that most humans share is that description of God's law written on our hearts and and that kind of thing and that that must come from somewhere and I think it's from there.
>> Are there any ethics that you would be culpable for offending regardless of what your personal goal is?
>> Uh yeah, sure. If I um if I were to commit murder then I would be culpable for that. Right.
>> Right. So so it would not be dependent >> responsible.
>> So it would not be dependent upon your personal voluntary goals. It would be independent of your goals your the culpability whether you decide to play the game or not.
>> Yeah.
>> That's what I'm talking about when I talk about objectivity. But how can you be blamew worthy if there is no responsibility to anyone that would exist? And if there is a responsibility, how does that work?
>> Right? Murder is >> well mur the word murder has the word unjustified already baked into it.
>> Okay. Okay.
>> Because killing is neither qualified as just or unjust. But murder would be yeah necessarily unjustified.
>> But you could you could ask why murder is um you know worse than its contrary in somebody's mind. You know what what what makes what makes somebody's life valuable to me that I am bound to regardless of my personal opinion respect it >> right why respect anybody great point >> like it or not we are held responsible for our actions >> what does that mean >> it it means it doesn't matter if you're a like a moral nihilist who has the genuine belief that morals don't exist Right. Um whether you believe that like if you believe that and then you go out and rob people and then you get caught for that. Well, you're going to be held responsible for those actions irrespective of your views on the nature of morals >> because depending on where you live >> other people.
>> Well, that's the thing is like now he's bringing if you hear him he's bringing in other people. So the other people is the only extent of responsibility that he brings into it which I address as an ad populum because them being them being >> the final authority when they're not a sufficient authority because they have the possibility of being wrong just kicks the can down the road of or or changes the arena of why should I value X? Why should I value what the people say, >> right? I mean, he used to live at one point in in a majority Christian country and he's probably happy that it's now it's like 50/50 believer non-believer.
Um, but now what? Not like why are you happy? Why is that? I mean, he might not be happy. I don't know. But why is that a good thing? Why is that objectively preferable? And if it's not objectively preferable, then what reasons do you have that just are justified to you in order to have that opinion?
>> Yeah. Let's say you did something that's illegal in North Korea, but it's not illegal here. Is it bad that you did it cuz it's bad in North Korea?
Is it bad that you did it cuz in some place in the world there's a populace that says it's bad. You know, if you do something against Sharia law in America, are you bad? Because if you lived over there, it's bad. depending on where you are.
>> Yeah, I guess >> I'm saying if they bring up governments, it's uh relative and subjective to the area and the governments in that area.
There are places with Sharia law, right?
>> Sharia, >> there we go.
>> If anybody doesn't know if that was part of the Chia commercial line, but uh >> I caught it. I will I will I will I will see my way out now.
>> We'll say don't do that. We don't like that and if you do that then these are going to be the consequences. [snorts] >> But how is that not just a description of evolutionary installments in our behavior rather than something that exists beyond our rational thoughts and pre our rational like before our rational thoughts?
>> It doesn't.
>> Zilzone this is sad bub. I do not know what that means.
>> Abe, come on, bro.
>> Abe, if you want to join, the link is in the chat.
>> So, it is a descript.
>> Come and meet uh the interlocutor, Mr. Zil to the zone to the PhD, >> right?
>> Descriptive actually. Let me back up a bit so we get some of that context back.
>> Do that then these are going to be the consequences.
But how is that not just a description of evolutionary installments in our behavior rather than something that exists beyond our rational thoughts and pre- our rational like before our rational thoughts?
>> It doesn't. So it is a description descriptive.
>> It no it's prescriptive. Look look if a parent tells a child don't do that is that a prescription?
See, now we're narrowing, narrowing, narrowing into a smaller and smaller space for him to play. Abe Dinkus says, "I can't, unfortunately." Mr. President, I thought you were the president, president. Okay. I thought you were in charge.
Who's got you? Are you a Russian asset, Abe Dinkus?
>> Uhoh.
>> Abe Dinkky.
Yes, because you actually have a personal source by which that prescription would exist which is which would be sort of a >> and the same goes Yeah. And the same No, it it would be the parent.
>> I I I I I agree that in the isolated case we're using it would be the parent, but you would have a personal source in that case. In the case of humanity at large, there's no personal source there to actually make that correspondence real.
>> Right. What about the legal system?
>> What legal system?
>> What about the legal system? I agree that we have a legal system, but in an in a godless world, the legal system is just an outcropping of evolutionary pressures that have converged into how we relate together as a species. But that's merely descriptive phenomena.
It's not it's only prescriptive in a colloquial sense of like that's what the powers at B do. But that just breaks down to force doctrine. But you just have to ask does force doctrine have any value compared to the contrary? And then we're back to the dilemma.
I mean like like it's I mean first of all I think like okay like like what what's your >> he he's getting a little back on the roof a little bit. It's not it's not at all clear to me in any way whatsoever that um morals are I'm I'm going to say metaphysically objective like that if you're going to make that claim which seems to be the claim that you're wanting to make.
>> It is the claim I'm wanting to make.
>> Um then that claim needs justification.
>> Awesome.
Yes.
>> Yeah. Thank you.
>> This is exactly where we pass go and collect 200.
>> Nice.
>> Um, then that claim needs justification.
>> Awesome. Awesome. I'm glad you said that. So, if that claim needs justification, therefore, if I make a claim, I therefore ought to back it up or reject said claim because truth is objectively more.
>> No, if you if you want to convince me.
So I don't actually So [laughter] So it's not that it's not that ideas have to be backed up. You just prefer that they're backed up. But objectively speaking, no idea ever has to be backed up ever.
>> Presumably presumably you do want to convince me.
>> But regardless is but but I want your goal to be this so >> I'm not I'm not I'm not even worried.
Like here's the thing. I don't think arguments fundamentally convince everybody. Like we went over earlier. I believe regeneration is the only thing that matters in terms of somebody's actual relationship with God. Whether or not you believe that God or Jesus exist is separate whether to even if you believe that they are God, it's to totally separate to whether or not you're reconciled to God in the first place. You're only reconciled if if by faith and repentance, right? You trust what Christ did for you on the cross. He died for your sins because you have sinned. You've offended God. You and God are not on good terms on your own. You cannot use good works. You cannot use your righteousness to get to heaven. You need the free gift of Jesus taking your place on the cross, being nailed, bleeding out, dying, and receiving the father's wrath all on top of that, which is an infinite wrath for the sin that has offended an infinite God. And because Jesus is God, he can receive all of an infinite punishment in a finite amount of time. So Christ died for your sins in your place to save you. And he was raised again on the third day according to the scriptures. So death didn't defeat him. And death will not be the end of you if you trust in Christ alone to pay for your sin debt because you cannot do it in of yourselves. It's not by your righteousness. It's not by your works. And God gives it as a free gift to change you, change your heart, and make you into a new person and have a right relationship with God. In atheism, you don't have that. In any other worldview, you don't have that.
that you don't have a means by which to actually satisfy the wrath of God outside of Christ. Now, let's back this up so I can get the context here.
>> Prefer that they're backed up, but objectively speaking, no idea ever has to be backed up ever.
>> Presumably, presumably you do want to convince me, >> but regardless is that's the separate question of whether convincing you is rational or has any value or not. And and if you're going to make any rational claim, for example, if you're going to reject God based on a set of principles and logical axioms, then that means that you believe those set of principles and logical axioms have prescriptive value over you. Not merely goal-based, but transcendental in their scope.
>> No, >> they assume they have God's morals themselves. They they have the best correct morals. And if you disagree with them, you're wrong. Why?
Why?
Because because >> oh okay trust me >> then that means that you believe those set of principles and logical axioms have prescriptive value over you not merely goal-based but transcendental in their scope.
>> No like like you're it seems to me that you're using the word prescriptive in a really narrow sense.
>> I use it the same way you used it. You used a personal source over a personal source. A parent child.
>> Those were your words.
>> That was your words. That was your words.
>> Yeah. No, that I I I used a parent as an example, but I also used the legal system as an example, >> which is also from a personal source.
But let's also let's look at this way.
Can a rock tell a child that they are responsible to the rock?
>> Um, I as far as I'm aware, no.
>> What about the laws of physics? Can the laws of physics have child what their purpose is in life?
>> Uh, no. I don't think that's within the purview of science.
>> Why did you ask those two interesting questions? elucidate the point a bit.
>> I asked those two questions to eliminate other possibilities besides personal sources as a grounding for morality. And because God is a personal source, he has a relationship with other personal beings, which would be you and I as h humans. So if they want to say that morality exists, they have to ground it in something that's personal because everything else reduces to nonsense, arbitrariness, circularity, or any any anything with insufficient explanatory power for moral actions.
>> Excellent. That's an argument for a personal god which points towards the Christian God. I like that.
>> Yeah, it could. This argument is on its own not sufficient to point to Christ, but it is at least uh good to point >> the quality of God.
>> It it it's an attack on atheism from the inside of debate itself.
>> Okay? Because debate prescribes honesty, truthfulness, rejection of wrong, um attesting to what is right, uh the ability to correct yourself and be willing to be corrected. The all of those things are moral realm, >> right? And the rationality behind deciding that it's good to correct yourself or become better. There's some rationality behind that. Why is it even good to become better? Why?
>> Right? is is what's the tiebreaker between better and worse that I ought to value better? If worse is if worse is just as real an option to me, then what makes one option necessary and another option what I ought to avoid?
>> Right. And it is absurdity. Their their position is reduced to absurdity.
>> Yeah. Is it?
>> No, it is not. What about uh what about the laws of logic? Could the laws of logic tell a child what they ought to do?
>> What are the laws of logic?
>> We'll use the three classical the law of non-contradiction. Of course, >> they're not laws of logic.
>> Okay. Okay.
>> They're they're they're the laws of thought. You can't derive a system of logic from the law of non-contradiction, the law of identity, and the law of excluding middle.
>> So So has anyone a whole bunch of >> Has anyone ever broken the laws of thought? Has anyone ever broken the laws of thought?
Yeah, I do all the [ __ ] time.
>> In what sense are they a law? Then then in what sense are they a law?
>> That's what they're called.
>> Okay. The human convention.
>> That's what they're called. Why are they called that? If they're not seen as a law. And if they are seen as a if they're not seen as a law, then yeah, why are they called that? If they are seen as a law, then we're back to square one. How can you break a law that still exists and does exist >> unless you have rationality and moral agency and then and then and there are things that there are objectively real things that those elements of yourself interact with.
>> You just call them rules of thought. I I think they might be called the rules of thought, but you know, rules, laws, >> maybe the ordinances of thought or the oracles of thought or the guidelines of thought. I mean, go ahead, Zo.
>> Can can you tell us the the rules of thought because I know the the three laws of classical laws of logic are the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction, and the law of excluded middle. And I learned that only recently. Now, what are the laws of thought?
>> Uh, he it's just what he's using to relabel the laws of logic, I think. Oh my goodness.
>> It's just a label things, guys. Why?
It's just a labeling thing.
>> This is the second time he's done that.
>> Well, he thinks that he thinks that the second time he's done that.
>> I think that what he's getting at is he doesn't believe that there are laws of logic such as that we ought to obey them. These are just the laws of what humans subjectively because laws of logic to him probably sound like a transcendental reality that encompasses all of the universe >> and he doesn't want the multiverse or whatever he would >> philosophically he doesn't want to philosophically address that.
>> So he would say that the laws of thought rather don't occur transcendentally but subjectively to each individual. Um >> which is ridiculous because my laws of logic are throwing babies overboard on the daily suckers. That's a lot of pregnant women to do that on the daily.
[laughter] >> Like honestly, were you were you supposed to be a maternity ward and you just like I'm rebelling sucker?
>> Oh my goodness. Okay.
>> Like you just became like Planned Parenthood sea cruise. [laughter] >> Okay. So they can be broken. So in what sense are they a law if they can be broken and then you can continue on in them? It's not like the laws of physics where they are, you know, you have non entities that are necessarily bound by the I mean loosely >> these are different contexts. Right.
>> Right. That's why I want to know what you mean by law in the laws of logic.
And you now you're saying the law >> I didn't mention the laws of logic. You did all I did. All I did was correct you on >> Yeah. He's frustrated. He he says that he said he noticed recently that every time he goes on Teraks, something happens to frustrate him. And uh yeah, I I think Terak, you know, he's got a chaotic thing going on here with his show. He he likes the chaos.
>> He thrives in chaos.
>> Is that what I was saying? He is frustrating me right now.
>> Oh >> yes. Yes. Well, now I know >> one word which was thought rather than logic >> and I was about to say which laws which is fine. Are these laws to be broken?
You said yes. And then in what sense is they a law? That's the next question. In what sense are they a law if they can be broken if we don't have some free moral agency at play irrespective of physics playing on our >> So do do you think that that um like like breaking the laws of thought or the laws of logic? Let's just call them the laws of logic. But I'm I'm kind of it's a bit of a bug bear of mine. I kind of want people to use the right nomature cuz you know I'm a bit pedantic.
>> That's fine. [laughter] >> Um like a like is there a kind of moral >> I can't help but just enjoy Terry's facial expression as this is happening.
>> You can tell he's like sucked in.
>> He's like he's like >> this is this is his World Cup here almost, you Okay, maybe I'm inflating a bit [laughter] much, but he is he's definitely like you don't often see him engaged in this level. Usually, like he is the most entertaining person on his show, bar none. He's a very entertaining guy. He really has it. Um, but I, you know, just seeing, you know, his his entertainment is just like, seeing him being entertained is, uh, I don't know, it's something to witness. He's he's not he is not uh, let's put it this way, he is not easily entertained, which is why he provides the entertainment. He's that kind of person.
>> On your view, is there a moral component to say um contradicting like making a contradictory statement? Like if I was to say um that's a square circle, is there like a moral aspect to that statement?
>> Yeah. So for example, if you say that's a squared circle, I have the moral responsibility to tell you unless there is a prevening concern of why I ought not tell you. I have the moral responsibility to correct you and say you cannot have a squared circle. If I fail to do so, I leave you in ignorance when I can do otherwise. And in your case, you have faculties that you >> Well, hold on.
>> Question that I asked, >> but you you said there's a moral aspect.
I gave you a moral aspect, >> right? But I'm talking about not not the um interlocutor. I'm talking about the >> I also want to correct this. I don't mean an interlocutor either. I could be just a friend, not somebody who's here to debate anybody.
But if somebody who I consider a friend said that's a squared circle, I'd be like what are you talking about? No, we have to fix this. There's no such thing as a squared circle. That's inherent contradiction. Right?
>> But if the person individual persists in saying after receiving better and also after having many chances to have known better and neglected the means to inform their mind because we're supposed to love the Lord our God with all of our heart, soul, strength, and mind. We're supposed to cultivate our mind as well.
So how can you do that when you're not maximizing what your mind can do by continuous learning? Um so yeah negligence is a sin and therefore every instance where your negligence consider continues to produce fail in your life those failures are also a sin that are outcroppings of your a previous failure.
So yeah, you are morally bound. Like for example, [sighs] [gasps] >> you have to take care, you have to take care of what belongs to you. You can't just let it like >> we have to be good stewards of our gifts from God.
>> But also, but also our moral duty to seek the truth is grounded in God and God's morals for Christians. But there is no grounding for that. For atheists, you have no grounding to draw a line for why we we should seek the truth at all.
What if I love lies and I'm going to live my whole life following and I don't even care. What if I hate critical thought? Forget it.
Right? That should be okay.
Right? I don't know. There's there's a point in there somewhere. I lost my train of thought.
>> Yeah. I mean that's the thing is like you know what's the tiebreaker between the contrary? Basically >> person who's making the contradictory statement. If someone makes a statement that's contradictory it does that statement have a kind of moral component to it >> in virtue of the fact that we ought to think correctly. We ought to think in correspondence to reality as best we can. We're not held to be omnisient because we can't be omnisient. But we if we have the faculties to know better, we do not avail ourselves of the information necessary to know better. we are culpable by not knowing better uh relative to our development in our life.
>> Yeah. So if we're an adult and we are neglecting parts of our life that need improvement, I mean some things are better than others, but if you're crazy enough to say squared circle or inherent contradiction, you know, you need to get your act together. You need to have some alarm system in you being like this is not cool. I need to get this right.
Right. because otherwise you're just going to be a burden on others and even then you have a responsibility towards God to um make yourself the best you can be in order to tackle on [clears throat] what what's in front of you and so any any negligence is a form of failure and if you have a fundamental negligence of thought I mean doesn't I mean the whole book of proverbs is about wisdom so that's an imperative on us to be wise to seek wisdom to seek it more than gold to seek it more than rubies and so That would be an imperative on us to not be foolish.
>> I agree and I think it's important for us to seek rationality and to reject irrationality where we find it because if people are thinking squared circles are a thing and and and uh inherent uh incoherencies, then I wouldn't want to drive on the road with these people. I want you to stop at the stoplight, okay, in the stop sign. And I want you to use your turn signal. I don't want to be scared about you not being able to comprehend rationality. It's very scary to me. You know what I mean?
>> Indeed.
>> Why?
>> Because we have purpose and that purpose comes from a personal source. Because as you have uh suggested, there's no evidence to come to the conclusion that impersonal sources can give purpose or direction to a life or determine which way we should value map and therefore which way we ought to reason.
>> What's our purpose? Yeah. Our purpose is to enjoy God and glorify him forever.
>> [ __ ] that.
>> Glorify God.
>> Get [ __ ] >> Well, you asked me. I gave you my answer.
>> Glorify God. God made a world in which people suffer so much they kill themselves. [ __ ] God.
>> All right. Well, I will I will stop talking now. Missing mod says she is not going to stop as stop signs. She will use stop signs as go signs going forward. [laughter] Birds aren't even real. Welcome to the show.
Please leave a like and subscribe if you haven't. We are so close to 200 here at the re-examination show. It'd be great to reach that 200 level. There's 11 people right now. If all you subscribed, thank you so much. For those of you who have not, please consider the generous donation of exactly $0 to click the subscribe button and bring us closer and closer to 200 and beyond. And who knows, maybe I'll open up a Discord at some point.
>> Let's go.
>> In terms of uh purpose, I would say pursue meaning.
I'm gonna go. Sorry. Um, Rex, that was inappropriate of me. Um, I apologize.
I'll >> I even though we never met in real life, I actually do really care about you and I I do like these conversations with you and I maybe it was irresponsible of me to even go there. Um, but >> Mod says I'll sub, I guess. I thought you were subbed, Mod. I thought you subbed.
>> She's trolling you. She's trolling. I I was like I thought you subbed after my uh debate with Aiden.
>> It's No, it's See, this is why I can't >> I kind of realized recently that I'm probably never going to be able to actually debate a Christian ever again.
>> Okay.
>> Especially especially if morals come up >> because they're going to then say that God is a source of morality. And it's like he made a world in which children get cancer. And if he's omnipotent and and and we are taking omnipotence to mean having the ability to do anything that isn't a logical contradiction or doesn't break the free classical laws of thought for some reason, right?
>> Okay. To be fair, it is possible to make a fallacy and not commit a sin. But in terms of if if you are continuously living in foolishness and to the degree that you think there are squared circles then there is culpability there in terms of like you ought to know better. You ought to know better. You've heard the term ignorance is no excuse when it comes to like police officers. Ignorance is also no excuse. As you age past being a baby, you are start to you you you have awareness such as to leave you culpable of how to think correctly.
>> I believe there's an age of accountability and I think uh Jewish tradition had that age that hold on there some certain age or something.
Yeah, at some certain age, I don't think it's defined by a number, but at some certain age, uh, people know that what they're doing is wrong or, you know, and do it anyway.
And that would be accountability for that age. Um, I actually don't know who Mod Boss is, but I'm hoping >> I'm hoping that they're subscribed.
Lol. So, she's talking to herself with a sock puppet account.
>> She's cool like that.
Then he didn't have to make a world in which children get cancer. He chose to.
And see, yeah, it's a it's a bastard because I actually really enjoyed debating Christians. [laughter] But yeah, I don't think I'm going to be able to do that.
>> All right, Shiva. Well, >> well, [laughter] >> no, I'm I'm gonna hang around. I've calmed down, Rex. I do apologize. Um, yeah.
>> [laughter] >> Yeah. Well, Shiva, you again again, you know, I I I like talking to you, Shiva, even though we disagree, I like you as a person and I like talking to you. I find you very intelligent and very interesting. Um, let me uh give me one second. Uh, Terak, could you throw the um you throw the link in your chat one more time because I don't know if Robin Robin Webster wants to come in.
>> Yep. One sec. Wait, do I throw it in your chat?
Yeah. So that that's the main of the debate and he gives it o >> if you want to >> uh well I'll say this Robin you definitely come in um I I definitely I definitely like uh I definitely like uh Shiva you know when it comes to like I don't know if it would trigger Shiva if I want to put it totally frankly if you come in and you want to start doing the thing if you don't know who Robin Webster is guys she is another atheist content creator she has also appeared with Tavo son Aubrey on a couple of occasions that I'm aware Um, so she's uh, yeah, we know each other through Missing Mod, which is part of the Breakfast Tacos network, which actually, Shiva, you've been on Breakfast Tacos before. I think it was in the after panel of the Elih versus Monkey Boy thing.
>> Oh, yeah. In which my my view is still that monkey boy bodied Eli really horrendously. [laughter] >> All right, let me let me get this over to my chat so that Robin can come on.
But you know, Rex, don't don't bounce and don't don't stop talking. Like, because you know, you're not responsible for my emotional volatility. That's entirely my my responsibility.
[laughter] >> I know I'm not responsible, but I I I do recognize that there is a a modicum of responsibility in my effect on other people because, you know, harsh words stir up strife, things like that.
>> Yeah. But you won't you won't actually >> correct. Whilst you two boys decide to go work out how things are going to work out, um I could sit in the middle going, "Um, boys and girls, there's a like button. Um there's a subscribe button.
It's awesome. It's great." And um you know, like um touch it, tickle it. Um make it your friend, you know, and maybe maybe one day when you feel inclined, >> you know, I've tried touching and tickling people and I haven't got any friends out of that yet. So, I mean, I don't know about you, Zil, but not not the most reliable method by scientific metrics.
>> Go along and um you know, send some money to any of the [ __ ] panelists.
It'll be awesome. It'll be great.
>> Uh touch, tickle, and ask for money.
>> Um they will appreciate it.
>> Look at me. I see 200 >> without saying a without saying a single swear word.
>> [ __ ] hell. I'll do Oh, I'm getting better. I'm getting so much better.
>> Let's go.
>> You got to ring the bell, bro.
>> I need to go to >> Thank you everybody for the 200 subs.
Um, I'm going to quickly screenshot that, but so I know it's not a dream.
[laughter] >> Oh yeah, baby.
>> Good stuff, man. Congrats, dude.
>> Thank you, Zil. Couldn't have done it without you.
Let's freaking go. Yes, you could have.
Good stuff. But >> yeah, probably. But uh say that. I just want to say that because you're right here and uh you know, it's it's like if I if I did if I did do it with if I the past is the past and now that you were in the past as a screenshot, you know, then therefore uh I couldn't do it without you because I was in the past and you can't change the past.
>> All right. There we Hey, congrats, man. 200 is awesome. It's >> Thank you. Thank you. And your shorts have been blowing up. That's awesome, too.
>> Yeah, indeed. Uh, how do I I'm going to save as copy JPEG. This ain't going nowhere, sucker.
>> Re 200. Now I got Now I got to do a 200 stream.
>> Yes, you do. Yes, you do. And you got a big stream coming up in three days, dude.
>> I do. I do.
>> I'm gonna be there. It's going to be fun. React is going to run the show and it's going to be a lot of fun.
>> Oh, yeah. gonna have a lot to talk about.
[gasps] Dartha says unsubs.
[laughter] >> It's all right, Darth. I had my I had my I had my five seconds of infamy until you unsubed. [laughter] >> But that's okay.
It is what it is, as Terak would say.
>> Um, Shiva, am I seeing you next week?
>> I don't know. Um, it depends entirely on >> where things stand. I get you.
>> Yeah, because it's like this is the first panel I've been on in [ __ ] knows how long.
>> Well, I I I can guarant I can guarantee you will find it fascinating. It is not a debate panel. It's not adversarial, but it is, I would say, consequential all the same in a way that you might find very interesting because you like to dissect things and there's a lot to dissect from this. So uh yeah so nonver not non adversarial a lot to dissect and um other panelists. So but all details >> under mystery the mystery is certainly intriguing. Um but yeah um it uh it entirely depends but I mean I should be like um uh free in about I don't know 15 20 minutes or so. So I'll um pop Yeah.
>> All right.
>> Right. Yeah. Sorry about that, Rex. Then >> you're all good. We We're all good. I forgive you. We are all reconciled.
>> Oh, look at that. We We We're all cuddling and stuff. It's awesome.
>> And there's Big Bad Mama unsubing. It's all right, Big Bad Mama. I already got the screenshot. So, at one point in time, I was there. And that's good enough for me. Remember, the Amazing Atheist at one point after 10 years got 1 million subscribers and has not had 1 million subscribers since.
>> It's 200 now, >> but you can't take that away from him.
>> It's 200 now, though, so you're good.
>> Girls, Shiva is awesome. Um, subscribe to his channel. Um, can one of the mods go and drop his link in chat so everyone can go and find him if they want to?
He's a [ __ ] good dude.
Hey, Big Bad Mama. Um, literally the stream before this was me on the line with Matt Dillah Hunty and Seth Andrews, two of the uh internet uh Mount Rushmore of atheists out there. So, yeah. Hey, Tiny Pink Nugget of Chaos. How you doing? Now I can listen while I cooks.
Evening, y'all. All right. All right.
Well, we're going to have to extend the show. We're going to have to extend the show. But we do have more material about morality coming up. If everybody wants to extend the show, we can do that. No problem.
>> Like and sub to Shiva.
Also have a couple shout outs to do as well. We're just reaching the end of the show as well, folks.
>> All right. The end of his show.
>> Yeah, cut him off. Um >> Okay. Okay. We'll cut him off.
>> Yeah, cut him off. Well, I was going to say I was going to go after after that, but uh we can reflect on what happened there before I do.
>> Yeah, go right ahead.
>> So, >> reflect away.
>> You were using a argument of rationality a lot to ground the reason why we think seeking truth is a good thing at all. and then having that point to the Christian God more or less. But would you like to clarify and and give a summary of of what happened there?
>> So [sighs] debate requires moral realism to be real. the scientific requires the scientific um method rather requires moral realism to be real because you can't have honesty, you know, be gone and still have a debate. When people are dishonest in debate, you say, "Okay, this isn't a debate. It is not a debate." That's what people say because now somebody is just like hiding the ball. They're not authentic. They're not engaging with the facts. They're not honest. They're dodging. they're equivocating.
But to say that they're dishonest is a moral claim because saying dishonest is different than saying inaccurate or incorrect or saying untruths. Being dishonest takes knowing the truth and knowingly doing otherwise in order to gain some advantage ostensibly with somebody or possibly with somebody. So that that's a moral. Yeah. So honesty is one of the moral claims um that is associated with that. And then to also >> So we're calling the Andrew Wilson, why is that wrong? Why is it wrong to be dishonest? No, I'm I'm saying that's funny. But yeah, that is the question.
Why is it wrong to be dishonest?
>> Well, it's doing a little bit more than that because if I say what is the C?
Some people might stop at is it right or is it wrong and stop there. But I go a little bit further I think by saying here's what you think is right and here's the exact opposite. Let's make it as extreme as possible.
What is the thing that makes you go for one and not the other?
>> There needs to be an arbit series of things.
>> There needs to be an arbiter.
>> So whatever their answer to that question is tells me what they value.
and then what they value. I suspect they tend to think other people ought to value the thing that they value too.
Therefore, coming to the same answer they would when pressed between a thing and its opposite. So it it it is fine like it's been done for hundreds of years to ask what's good about this or what's bad about this if it's relative.
People have done that. But I think making the illustration as extreme and as stark as possible is going to be the best tool for making it understandable to the most people because if it's if it's extreme then it's stark. If it's stark it's clear. And if it's clear then more people are going to get it than not. And so if I say, well, if I if I help a lady cross the road instead of trying to help a lady uh cross the edge of the cliff, then why is one better than the other in their mind? And then they'll say something like human well-being or harm or life or things like that. And I'll be like, why does that have any value over me? Why does that why does that give me prescriptives in terms of how I ought to live my life in light of that?
And then the answer would be something along the lines of you know well if you want to achieve some goal it's like okay well then if my goal is to say good night and then you know hope you hope you know how to fly >> then we go into human flourishing and what does that mean in preservation of human life and and assuming that that's valuable to everyone?
>> Well even if it was valuable to everyone like why is it why how isn't everyone wrong? Is it is it right or is it arbitrary? Is it completely like there is no right or wrong? It's just a happen stance. That's what I call that's what descriptive versus prescriptive is. So if all you're saying is people tend to do a thing, you're just describing what's popular. You're not actually telling me what is correct because now you're we're just saying this is how the species works. Great. This is where fish live in water. Now what what do I do with that?
fish go blub blub cow go moo how does that tell me what I ought to do when facing decisions how does that tell me if I'm going to be guilty or righteous or innocent in any sort of situation and if you say those don't exist then you can't tell me to demonstrate claims you can't for example here's what I like to do and I did this with wildart when I was on Kieran show with him um I asked him should creation be taught in schools because I know they can't stand that and then they'll say No. And then I'll say, "Okay, let's say there's creationism being taught in schools and then there's no creationism but evolution being taught in schools. What's the tiebreaker?"
And then he told me that your basically I had to parse through all the deep English, but he told me that your mind ought to reflect reality basically. And then I would ask him why. You know, I think you saw that stream. I think that was in moral argument marathon 3.
I might I don't I don't think I saw that one.
>> Yeah. Well, there's at least four now.
And you're in the fourth one.
>> I'm happy to be a part of the fourth one.
>> Oh, yeah.
Yeah. So, I don't think Rev is going to be joining us today. I think he's going to be I think he has like an infinite lawn and he has taken his >> Oh, yeah. push mower, right?
>> 9inch push mower.
>> Yeah. and and a thousand yard lawn and just it's >> and he's wearing his hat out there too.
So >> yeah, Darthurana says once one engages in a question, they have simultaneously engaged in truth seeking even if they don't know it. But most really were simply looking for a win to try to discredit.
But that's how that's how it is when you demand, you know, evidence. What you're saying is tacitly that you ought to abandon ideas that have no evidence, which is an ought. Even if you think it's the most reasonable odd in the world, the fact that you think it's reasonable means that you have used reason to make a moral map on the world to find out what your priorities are and what order they come in >> for or in order for you to live what you call a good life or best life, which was covered in moral argument marathon one where I had a back and forth with objective ethics. when I said to him, "Okay, do you think that if everybody followed your subjective way of running your life that they would have the most chance of having their best life objectively speaking?" And he had to say yes. Even though he couldn't say that some goals are better than others.
Exactly. Even though he couldn't say that I ought to believe the truth and I ought to abandon lies, he and he admitted openly that he couldn't say that.
So now we're kind of stuck where >> and I said this to Matt Dillah Hunty on his show where and he he took the bullet he bit the bullet you know ought we believe the truth and ought we reject lies.
No.
>> Boom. What?
>> So, no matter what, even if I started like falling all over, tripping all over myself, and saying the dumbest things and the worst, most vile things you've ever heard in your life, and he claims, I've got the clip. The clip of what? Let me guess. The clip is going to tell you, you ought not follow Christianity because this guy's crazy. There's a couple things that does. You admit that reality is prescriptive by posting the video. You admit that crazy is contrasted from sane, which is a design claim for how a human mind ought to work and how we ought to think. And you wrapped it all up in one package in the name of atheism. Therefore, I win. Even though there's no winning, because there's no moral map, because nothing is valuable, because nothing is true. You know, whatever.
>> Oh my goodness.
>> The subjectivity crusade rages on.
That's so embarrassing for them.
>> And he says it's embarrassing for me because I say yes, God did ordain that those women would get graped and he used it as a punishment for somebody else with David. And yes, those women suffered and yes, what those men did was bad. What those men did does not become by virtue good by God ordaining it to happen. The same thing happens with Christ. And they think that they got to win. I was consistent. They were not. I could establish my worldview from top to bottom. They can't even get started without agreeing with me that reality is prescriptive.
Certainty exists. Did you see Did you see the previous stream? I would actually like your take on the previous stream. I know I've pinned the link at the bottom. So, I know I know Zilzone, he's got to go back in the matrix. Um >> I do. I do. I should take my This would be a good transition uh to take my exit. Yeah, reexit. That That was an awesome um exchange you shared there and I really enjoyed your use of the argument and looking forward to more about that. And everybody look forward to a debate me and Reax have on the 5th. And in 3 days, React has an awesome stream on this channel.
Be there. All right, >> coming right up.
>> All right, peace out, Re. Thanks for having me, dude. And good stuff, man.
Take it easy, dude.
>> Take it easy. [laughter] Missing mod.
I think he lost weight over the years, but you know, old habits die hard.
How you guys doing out there? Are you ready for more moral related content?
Because I can bring out some more. I can bring out some more indeed. Uh let's go for Matt Deah Hunty and allegedly Ian because they had a discussion recently about moral realism and I wanted to hit that up and see how exactly they worked that out. Um, of course we got more ads.
So, I'll let the ads run.
Certainly exists says, "I haven't seen it yet. Great to hear you talk to him.
He is touted as something special by the atheist community." Yeah. Um, he is very intelligent. Um, he is very well spoken, but I think my argument kind of clears all the barriers of modern atheism that I have seen so far. Tiny pink nugget of chaos is more do it.
Yeah, Jay Dyer definitely lets it all hang out for sure. For sure. So, okay, here's the next video. It is Matt Delhunty. I changed my mind on objective morality. Now, can you spot the irony?
He has no sense of irony with this. Can you spot the irony? Did Okay, here's the fork. If somebody says they changed their mind from from an atheist perspective, the fork is this. Did you change your mind because of reason? If they say yes, then they have a moral mapping of what ought they do when presented with evidence. If they say no, it wasn't because of reason, then they have no reason to have changed their mind in the first place. I don't really know what the middle is. I mean, I guess the middle could say is, well, I changed my mind because of my emotions, but that would be no reason. But if they changed it because of reason, they made a calculation and they made an authoritative value judgment of which direction their mind ought to go for their uh worldview.
Darth says, "You should never defend anything as if it were a reprehensible act. Always ask why your actions of degeneracy are bad, but their actions of degeneracy are good."
Face to face Patreon project presents I changed my mind on objective morality.
Hey everybody, welcome. Um, this one this one's kind of important and one I couldn't I couldn't do on my own and I couldn't wait to do. Um, for those who have followed what I've said about morality for I don't know decades now.
Um, I gave a lecture ages ago called >> Certain Eagles says when he talked to Jim Pop last, he didn't even have a mind by his own admission. When [snorts] did he get one? Um, yeah, I actually gave a super chat chat to modern day debate in a Jim Bob debate on creationism. I don't like Jim Bob because the anti-semitism is horrific, but uh I just happen to agree with him on creationism versus evolution. So, I wanted I also did want to see what his reaction would be.
Unfortunately, the evolutionist um believes in God. And so when I asked him, I think the question was actually, you know what? I might bring that up right now. I might bring that up right now, boys and girls. Let me do that because I kind of want to kind of want to see that before we get to Matt Dillah Hunty and allegedly Ian. We're going to go modernday debate on creation and evolution. And I bring up moral agency because moral agency has to do with rational moral agents which last I checked were living beings that they propose came about by purely naturalistic sources. Lol. I debated Ian. He is such a poser. I watched Ian because he asked the question of like, you know, what if uh oh gosh, it was uh it was a very uncomfortable question.
[sighs] What if God asked you to like end the life of a baby or something along those lines? Or oh, um I think he was asking like uh did God know he was going to change his mind? Which he's taking change his mind literally as opposed to figuratively. God doesn't actually change his mind in a way that a human would because it's it's categorically impossible. So what it would be is the tests uh before like I think he's talking about Moses. God was testing Moses not so so God could know what is in Moses but so that Moses could know is in himself. Uh it's when God tests people it's to see whether or not they are actually having the integrity they might think they have.
Unapologetic preacher you are invited to come on. Unfortunately Zilzone had to take a hike but uh yeah you and certainty exists. How does the evolutionist Christian work out death starting in the garden? um by reinterpreting the Bible according to his real prior commitments. That's how you do it. Um I'm gonna ask where the reexam question came in.
There we go. All right, let's pop this up.
Here we go. Evolution on trial with Sam Mackey and made by Jim Bob.
>> The re-examination show since 10. Thank you. He says, "Dr. Sam, since you already believe that humans ought to live by truth and reject untruth, when did objective moral agency arise, such as to have moral laws that can be rebelled against yet still exist?"
>> Yeah. I ascribe objective moral values and laws to God. I don't base them in anything scientific.
>> Okay. And then Chaw XDDD for So notice how he ascribes him to God.
Jim Bob doesn't really know how to alioop because that's the right answer.
So I understand special pleading changes mind. Special pleading of course is the ignorance of the category error.
BS Lewis thinks special pleading is subjectively wrong.
We ought not use special pleading, don't you know?
Yes. Yes, mod indeed. Uh, you know what?
Another thing I can do is check because he does because Jim Bob does bring up morality later on. So, I do want to do want to bring that up.
I love the ask feature they have here.
Um, oop um morality debate.
It's definitely later on than my comment.
Let's see. Mine's 156.
Yeah. Without theistic framework struggles to distinguish between biological behavior and animals.
Questions moral distinctions. Yeah, the moral distinction right about here.
We're going to bring that up.
>> Biological organisms, >> right?
>> So, there's a lot about the question there that I disagree with. Um, we're we're trying to compare the invasion of maybe bullfrogs in into Australia [clears throat] >> with humans invading another country and putting that in evolution, which is a completely different descriptive framework.
from an evolutionary view. Nope.
>> But there's no there is no such thing as an evolutionary view. That's >> No, no, no. I mean the entailments. When I say evolutionary view, Sam, I'm >> Hey, bubblegum gun. I don't think I've seen you around much. How you been?
Uh, take a seat, I guess. saying evolution. If evolution was true, >> trying to get stuff set up.
>> Hold up a second. You sound like Dad knows best.
>> No, it's not me.
It's uh it's Darth.
>> It's not me. It's Darth. Who am I believing here? Dad knows best or Darth.
>> No, I meant to say I'm not uh Dad knows best. I'm Darth.
>> Cool.
>> A real Darth >> B Lewis. uh with the real bubblegum gun as well. Apparently, I think half of ReX's arguments depend on special pleading. The other half is words don't mean words, which is of course yet another value claim.
>> Just matter in motion and biology doing what biology does. It would almost be deterministic. I I I might even venture to say that biology is just unfolding what it does and humans are biology and they're unfolding their behaviors. Now, without a Christian lens, I would say if it's purely naturalistic, which you're you're I'm not asking you because your view is that no, you you do hold to a a Christian lens that there is some moral stuff going on here. I'm saying no, I'm a fellow person who who believes in evolution who doesn't have your framework. They really couldn't make the distinction between an invasive uh category of frogs and an invasive category of humans. They really couldn't actually make the case, could they?
>> Well, uh yeah. So you've rightly um said there that you're describing naturalism, not evolution. Yeah. Um and I think there's masses of difference. You just think about the le >> I don't think that this was it. But I remember they did have some back and forth on morality that was a little more interesting this. But we can go back to Matt Dillah Hunty. By the way, how you doing, Darth? You've not been I mean you've not been on the show before, but you've definitely been in the chat sometimes throwing tomatoes, sometimes throwing rocks, and sometimes throwing bouques.
some sometimes throwing the nword too.
But uh >> yeah, well if that happens, you're definitely out.
>> Well, the superiority of secular morality >> and I basically talked about how there's a lot of confusion about the difference between absolute and objective or relative and situational and and all these things and how I'm not a moral relativist, but I don't think there are moral absolutes and that I wasn't a moral realist. I didn't think you could get to a sort of um objective foundation. And several times I toyed with ideas that I thought got me there.
Um but I made what I thought was a a pretty robust case for whether this counts as morality, whether this is the foundation that we ought to be involved with supporting. um this one which went on to just be called well-being after Sam Harris wrote the moral landscape and stuff.
>> Okay. The problem is when Sam Harris wrote the moral landscape, he entered into debate with William Lane Craig. I'm not a William Lane Craig fan as we know because on August 5th I'll be debating Zilzone on mullanism which William Lang Craig is a proponent of. Uh however um he got destroyed from the opening statement from William Lane Craig on the moral landscape because William Lang Craig demonstrated that when you define as Sam Harris does that good means the flourishing of conscious creatures then the question becomes is Ian a robot you know the jury is out BS Lewis but uh the question becomes what makes the well-being and flourishing of conscious creatures good so if you take that as the meaning of good. Then all it boils down to is the well-being of conscious or the flourishing of conscious creatures is the flourishing of conscious creatures. So it's a tutology.
>> Yeah. And the thing is that they can never actually define what is this good.
It's always some sort of nebulous liberal agenda. But but if you if you take it from the perspective of biology, you're gonna they're going to have to accept some things that are contradictory to the whole, you know, the liberal uh ethos of, you know, being multicultural, being accepting of the LGBT community because the gays would be like a evolutionary dead end. So they would be have to be ousted society for the greater good.
>> Yeah. I don't think you need to ou people of society you know in that case I mean in in from Christian perspective we don't have a prescription for how a government ought to work like in a specific granular level and uh when Rev and I discussed uh the last three episodes of React and Rev what one of the points that was brought up was in the Old Testament you were stoned to death if you had uh homosexual sex.
However, in in the New Testament, it it says as far as homosexuals, such were some of you. But you can't say such were some of you if there is this continuous onus upon us to stone people to death who have committed those uh sins. So there's something that's a little different in the New Testament of how we interact with these things. Peter says, "What is flourishing?"
>> Exactly.
And even if you could define flourishing, can you show me why that's more valuable than the contrary?
>> Yeah. Why ought we flourish? Because there's no there's no imperative as to why we ought do that. We're not just tear each other ourselves apart like Conan the Barbarian, >> right? And now they have the pressure to uh establish their claim that we ought to do that. And if they say, "Well, we well there's no ought," then they have to uh relinquish their monopoly on some kind of moral superiority and be like, "Okay, there's no ought in either direction. Therefore, you all you can like even if you can't convince them, you can at least neutralize them because they can't reason without moral mapping with to prioritize one thing over another.
>> We're on similar pages there at least with what we're talking about.
um this is it and here's how you can do it and you know here's everything else and it solved every problem except for why should we care about that foundation and my answer was I don't care if you don't care about well-being we're not talking about the same thing and if you don't want to call it morality that's fine >> and [snorts] there was a period of time where I >> why why ought we care about well-being why ought we care about flourishing >> well that's where the train stops for him Because I think what's happening is he has a natural god-given understanding of the value of human life and the value of human well-being and flourishing and all those things.
>> But according to the theory of evolution, we're all technically just like uh thinking rocks. So it wouldn't really matter just rocks colliding with rocks ultimately. It's just minerals, composits of minerals. They're com, you know, it the tragedy would be no different than a toaster bashing I don't know, like a a keyboard.
Well, as he uh p as he um so sanctimoniously uh preached to me that you have to have compassion and empathy and all this kind of stuff. And you'd think you were talking to a church lady, but no, you're talking to Matt Dillah Hunty. [laughter] Where's the empathy for the toasters?
>> Uh, I don't know, man. Toaster rights.
Know what I'm saying?
>> Thought I had solved the isought problem, which was >> I think you found the isot problem.
>> In incredibly arrogant, I suppose, but this is what happens when you dig in and think on things. And actually, I just talked with Aaron Rabenwitz the other day, who >> what's wrong with being arrogant? Unless there's an ought to not be arrogant.
Like, unbelievable.
>> Who's >> you? You literally as a human being cannot operate outside of absolute moral realms.
Can you can you imagine let's say allegedly Ian says, "Well, I don't think I don't think arrogance is wrong." Would Matt Dill Hunty be then forced to accept that there's a possible reasonable alternative where maybe arrogance isn't wrong.
>> I don't know.
>> Seems to also think he solved the Azot problem. But I did I did my presentation of the solution in a live debate with John Ferrer who immediately uh corrected me and pointed out that all I had done was smuggle in the the ought the imperative I smuggled it in. I was saying you can't get from an an is to an uh you can't get from a fact to what you should do about it. And as Stefan Molnu once pointed out about David Hume's guillotine is I ought you can derive from what he said that I ought not get an ought from an is. To say that I can't get an ought from an is is not a description of what's impossible. It's a description of what's not permissible.
There's a difference and that's why that fails.
>> I haven't heard of Stephan Mullen in a long time. I heard he's back. He's back, but I didn't realize how, we'll say, nivist he was. Like, he definitely hits up on the race and IQ stuff a whole lot.
>> I think he was one of the originals who did that now thinking about it.
>> Smuggling, also known as Big Smuggling Lewis. Um, was he one of the Yeah, he was one that popularized it. He had Jared Taylor on his show at least once.
Um, he's had a lot of people on his show.
It's really unfortunate because I there was a lot of episodes that I had liked of his, but now I cannot watch his stuff with any comfort because I've looked at his ex account and it's just like, oh, dude, what have you done? Oh my gosh, >> I got to check it out.
>> Oh, it's Yeah. But my solution was to to start with two facts. Here are the facts about reality. Here is the goal that we're setting. uh therefore you can get to you know what you ought to do and you can but the problem is I was smuggling in the ought and the goal and John pointed that >> I'll just say it explicitly I think it's racist to to essentialize people down these now he's not going to say he's essentializing them but if you're going to say on average this and on average that even if true what are you trying to convey with that what is the actual what is the explanatory power you are trying to use that as an article of evidence in order to lead us to a certain conclusion of >> well I think that most of the arguments when they when they bring that up the argument they're trying to make is if we if we want like a you know a functioning you know a high stable society then we we ought have high IQ people. So it follows like so it kind of falls from that if you want that high high you know that functioning society you ought want high IQ people.
>> Yeah. That's just goal-based uh ethics again which again it's like all you have to do is say okay here's your goal.
Here's the contrary of your goal. Why ought I choose your goal of the over the contrary of your goal? And now you're back to value mapping and declaring absolutes again. By the way, BS Lewis has converted to Bible smuggling Lewis and now he is a good boy. [bell] Have fun in China out and corrected me. And I I like I like learning something new. And so >> I like learning something new unless I'm scared to learn something new and then I'll hit the mute button real fast. So, uh, my guest today, which is really rare for a Patreon video, is allegedly Ian.
And he's on the line regularly. And we did some videos together. And right after we did a show, what, two weeks ago, maybe I think it was, we were talking afterwards and Ian was like, "Hey, I'd like to address something about moral realism." And I was like, "Okay."
and and in span of I don't know a few minutes um I think my mind was almost completely changed. So, I figured what we'd do is get EN here, kind of reenact part of that, and and kind of show what they were presenting, what I was thinking, and how it changed my mind.
And hopefully you guys can benefit from it, too, because I might now be to some extent with limitations that we'll probably get into a moral realist of some variety. So, Ian, thanks a ton for helping change my mind. Here you are. Let's change everybody else's mind that that agreed with the old me.
>> Yeah.
>> Hold up. What's going to change everybody else's mind?
>> Do I have to say it? Darth, can you complete the thought for me? You know where I'm going with this already?
>> What's going to change your mind is uh my opinions are better than your opinions, >> which is a value claim.
>> Yeah.
>> But he would have to justify that using reason, which means his reasons would be binding to our minds in order to change them. I mean, see how universal this is?
It's ubiquitous.
>> Ain't that Yeah. And they're trying to like present it as if some sort of like some esoteric knowledge, some sort of like profound truth that Matt Honey is now just being revealed by this twink.
>> Okay. I'm not going to I'm not going to endorse that. You know, even if I don't even if I disagree with these guys, I'm not going to, you know, I don't want to be demeaning. I I I'll be aggressive when I'm in a debate with them, but I'm not going to be demeaning. Well, I'm being accurate. That's That's what he calls himself.
>> He calls himself that.
>> I think he does. Well, he he's openly >> Oh, I think he does. Okay.
>> Well, he's openly that. What am I supposed to call him?
>> Uh, you can call him allegedly Ian. How about that? He calls himself that for sure.
>> Hey, thanks for having me. I'm excited.
This is one of my favorite topics.
>> Well, I'm going to turn it over to you to basically >> give the nuts and bolts. Um, >> tell me he's not a twink.
>> I'm not denying that. I'm not denying what proclivities he may or may not have. [laughter] >> You think it's a bottom or a top?
>> He's 100% dig origin and limitations and stuff like that, but you you should set up the framework so that I don't butcher it.
>> Yeah. So, it's a little bit elusive what ethics is. When you think about when you try to give a formal definition of what would count as something qualifying as ethics, it can be a little bit opaque. But I think the correct framing is the the contean framing, which is that ethics is aiming at something called the categorical imperative. So an imperative is just a statement that you should do this. It's it's saying uh go do this. Um and there are lots of different imperatives. Some of these imperatives are are hypothetical imperatives where you know if you would like to achieve a specific >> that is the question BS that is the question.
>> Then you should take a specific action.
So maybe the goal in question is something like graduating from college.
If you want to graduate from college you ought go to your classes. If you don't go to your classes you're not going to be able to achieve that goal. So we would say that you ought do this action because it fits into your goal. Um it's it's necessary for your goal even. Uh so that's a hypothetical imperative. But the the categorical imperative is aiming to give in an ought you ought do this without any reference to goals a sort of ought that everybody must hold to a second no matter. So see he's making a he's making you know he's uh he's appealing to you know the goals. I I guess the big question would be to ask them was like would be uh should the goal of a human being should be to fulfill their purpose and and I guess from there then you they would have to be like under that if that is the goal for human beings to fulfill their purpose you know have a a functional a function a functioning life then it would be within the goals would include not being whatever the heck the atheists are. You know, this mishmash of leftist values.
Yeah. Well, then you'd have to admit that purpose exists, which purpose is meaningless if all you do, you can assign yourself, you know, your own identity and purpose willy-nilly. You can assign yourself um purpose A today and then purpose Z tomorrow and they're just as valid and just as true as the next one. and they could be totally opposite from each other.
>> So if but then if they but then if they admit that purpose is objective for people then they need an outside conscious source that's aware of their existence in order to give them a different purpose than the rocks and the dust in the air around them.
>> Yeah. But but I think it's like it's first asking about the question like should like um if do you want people to live like a functioning life like a a >> what does it mean to function as opposed to malfunction?
>> Yeah. Well something that like for example doesn't suffer from like mental disorders and of course you know what I'm getting at by saying this because that that would be classified as a dysfunction and that is that is objectively a dysfunction. This is not it's not me trying to be a bigot, but like if if you know if that is the goal should be the goal, then they should embrace those uh you know those principles or values, whatever you want to call it.
>> Are you are you referring to eugenics or what are you talking about?
>> Well, just not being like trans not not cut enough here, you know, pee pe.
[sighs and gasps] >> Okay. Yeah. Yeah. So, I see what you're saying that that would mean that there are objective there are objective ontologies of men and women and that to uh tear off healthy flesh uh to in order to achieve some higher end is necessarily wrong.
>> Yeah, I'm trying to I'm trying to avoid the YouTube landmines. So, but >> thank you for thank you for doing that much. But um yeah, so yeah, >> what their goals are. Um, so that that's the project of ethics is trying to determine whether or not there is a categorical imperative. And if there is one, then you're a moral realist.
There's a thing that everybody ought to do, no matter who you are, no matter what your goals are. And if you fail to do that, you're in some ways irrational.
Um, >> okay. But you didn't say immoral, you said irrational. So in what way is rationality moral in and of itself? See, here's the thing. Even Shiva wanted to question why rationality would be moral, you know, and I gave him an answer. It's like we have responsibility with how we live our lives and that would include the thinking. And so therefore, if you're a fully grown adult who believes in squared circles, then you ought objectively ought to get your act together as far as logic and reasoning.
This guy on the right sucks, says the missing mod.
>> Wonder how he's so cool now. I'm pretty sure he does that figurative and literally.
>> Yeah, I I That's the obvious joke.
That's the obvious joke, Darth. But um uh wonder how he he's so cool now. Well, because what he he's a Tik Tok atheist.
So, he'll go on Tik Tok. He will invite people to come. Usually the least informed believers or religious people will come on his show and then he will demolish them because they don't know how to debate and they don't know the scriptures and then all that kind of stuff.
So that's that's just how it usually goes.
>> So is that are you satisfied with with that framework?
>> Yeah, it sounds like the way you what you're describing as the hypothetical imperative of if you want to graduate college, you ought to do this is the same, you know, solution that I tried to present to to Ferrer that he immediately shot down and said, "Oh, no, you're smuggling that in. That's that's that's the distinction between a categorical."
Thanks Re on the right mod.
>> No, I mean they're doing the video >> and Darth >> comparative and a hypothetical one. So yeah.
>> Yeah. Um so so from there we have kind of two things that are going on here. We have um there there are kind of like two ways that you could arrive at a categorical imperative. either you can seek to establish that there's a a goal that is inescapable that every single person must conform to and if you go back to a lot of the really early works like all of the virtue ethicists Plato Aristotle Socrates all the people in ancient Greece they thought that there was a specific goal that is just inescapable they called it udeimmonia which it's it doesn't have a direct translation in English but it's something like happiness as a state of being like you're you're succeeding as a human that basically what we're all aiming at is to live a good life.
>> It just seems like a whole lot of circular statements going on. Supposing what it has yet to prove, supposing a model it has yet to actually facilitate.
Because it obviously if God exists and his mind is the foundation of reality, he objectively knows what our purpose is. And he objectively knows that we have value because he is the only one that can imbue value to anything.
>> Yeah. They have to reject purpose because with purpose if there's a purpose that already sets up the goal and so they can no longer serve their own per their own goals, their own objectives, >> right?
and that the content of this good life is is going to be an objective criteria that everybody is aiming towards.
Everybody's aiming towards their own flourishing. Um and then because there's this shared objective goal that everybody has um there are going to be things that are necessary to achieve it.
So on that basis, everybody has a reason to do the virtuous things because virtue is required to achieve. Virtue is good because we want virtue to have happiness and happiness is purpose because purpose is good virtue. Where what what are we even talking about?
>> But what if uh what makes me happy is being a Jeffrey Dmer and it would be completely rational and logical for me to you know to kidnap people and chop off their butts so I can eat it because that's what I like.
I I just have to stop because uh BS Lewis uh reminded me of uh this >> I if if we if we fall for >> Yeah. Just [laughter] I just had to do that. I don't Do you remember that election cycle 2016?
>> No, I think I was still in high school so I wasn't paying attention. Yeah, I'm an old man. What can I say? Uh gosh, now I lost it. Is it over here? Oh man.
>> Team Jeffrey Dmer now.
>> Team Jeffrey Dmer. You need to team up with team Viking with Zilzone sucker.
>> Your udimonia, your flourishing. Um so that's that's how they attempted to establish a categorical imperative. So the first way that you might arrive at a categorical imperative is by um establishing that every single person is committed to a shared goal somehow some way. Um another way that you could arrive at the categorical imperative.
This is I I I'm kind of in between both of these methods. I'm not sure which one's the true one, but um another one is that you establish that there are certain actions that are required to achieve any goal. There are certain things that you must value in order to any goal at all.
>> What?
>> He's like just stating the obvious. Like if if you have goals, you need to do action. It's like no [ __ ] Charlie.
>> Well, that was the thing. It's like that's why I'm making a distinction between prescriptive and descriptive.
Prescriptive has to do with objective purpose. As you had pointed out, descriptive is just if you believe that we're living in this universe that is just a a wave uh in spaceime where the rocks in space and the chemicals therein are just fumbling around, then all you have left are descriptions. And without a prescriptive notion that is guiding these things then the whole you know if you want a rock to bump into another rock then there's must be force applied to this rock so that the rock can apply force to the next rock. What have you actually achieved?
What have we learned today ladies and gentlemen? If that if that's the best you can do as far as a categorical imperative and well you know if you want to eat the food you have to put the food in your mouth. Well, yeah. How is that objectively ethical? Because you can put food in your mouth that doesn't belong to you. You can steal somebody's food and put it in your mouth and voila, you have achieved your goal. How is that supposed to displace Christian morality or any other theistic form of morality for that matter?
>> I'm Jeffrey Dmer and I got the rumblies that uh only butts can satisfy.
>> Uhhuh.
and that there are going to be certain things that you're committed to. So, an example of this, a framework that I'm really drawn to, um, it's put forward by a guy named Alan Goworth. So, the the framework goes something like this. I'm an agent. What that means is that I have these goals and I take actions to achieve these goals in order to achieve >> how did you arrive at your goals?
Are did you use reason to establish your goals? And if you used reason, what part of your reasoning process told you what to pursue and not to pursue?
That would mean that there is an objective value to what you're pursuing and the methods by which you pursue it.
Be says, "Every atheist I know thinks people are rocks bumping into each other. Great job steel manning, guys.
I know every atheist believes in the soul and persons. I I get it. I know.
You know, >> any goal, it doesn't matter what it is.
I'm going to need my freedom and well-being. Let's say my goal is something like, I don't know, let's let's take like an immoral goal uh to to demonstrate how the system might work.
>> How can you have an immoral goal? This is a new one on me. Darth, fill me in.
What is an immoral goal according to allegedly Ian?
>> I guess an immoral goal would be like uh uh an objective that goes against your opinions.
So if I if I'm walking down the street and I step on a rake and that rake hits me in the face, then I have committed an immorality.
>> I I guess I guess if if the goal was to like step on the rake so it would hit your balls, but but the rake ends up like hitting like your face, I guess it would be immoral because it went against your [laughter] I don't know how that even works. It reminds me of I and I looked this quote up and it's somewhat confirmed by my interactions with Tump, but TJ has been quoted allegedly, not allegedly Ian, but allegedly TJ has been quoted to have in a debate been asked, "So, if a rock prevented me from attaining my goal, would the rock be immoral?" And he said, "Yes."
>> [laughter] >> No way.
>> Yeah, I I believe it. He's freaking he's >> I I can I can do you better. There was in in the video where I'm showing myself debating Tea Jump on Sarah Tomato's after panel. Um in the case where a man, however, however he did it, gave a woman an unwanted pregnancy, the man would not be immoral. Nature would be immoral. Right?
You know, you just got to blame the forces of nature. You got to blame uh you know, the shoe that you gota you got to understand what really had the interaction between the man and the woman wasn't the man. It was the shoe.
So technically it was a shoe. Shoes.
Shoes are immoral. Dude, that's what I that's that's something similar to what I said where I was like, "Okay, so if I throw a rock at a person, then the rock is immoral for landing a nailing a bullseye in the back of their head."
>> According to these people, yeah, >> we have transitive morality, people.
Unbelievable. You can you can launder your morality out of your actions so long as you use projectiles and other uh means, you know, other mediators, other mediums. Could you Could you imagine if I like doxed somebody and then I told the judge, "No, I didn't dox them. The computer doxed them."
>> You know, instead of sacrificing chickens, maybe we should be sacrificing like socks.
>> I suppose Brandice says teal's surprise birthday parties are immoral. [laughter] how you doing?
[laughter] I'm just imagining him calling the cops in his perfect world because somebody gave him a surprise birthday party.
>> Well, you know, that's the consequences of like making morality some sort of quantifiable value or some sort of like substance.
>> Yeah. A substance that does that exists on the exact same plane as matter.
Obviously, if you have a distinction between spiritual and material, then there's a part of you that exists outside of matter that has a will that is culpable on a level that mere physics cannot be.
>> I'm not sure like if you're like a platonic is like some platonic version of it.
>> No, what [clears throat] I'm saying is uh I I'm a Christian. I believe that we have a soul and we have a body. The body is material. The soul is spiritual. If you're an atheist, uh, that is a naturalist, you know, before that all the non-naturalist atheists jump on me in the chat. Um, but if you're an atheist who is a naturalist, you believe that the only plane of reality is nature itself. But nature is dictated by the laws of physics. And the laws of physics >> don't tell you what your purpose is.
They can't tell you when you've done wrong. They don't have the cognition to understand when a wrong has been done or to establish what right and wrong is in the first place. It just goes back to a descriptor claim all over again.
>> Cuz I thought like Christian like immorality was just like you breaking the laws. That's basically it.
>> Um and yeah in any way where you're defying God and what he has uh given you to to do and to not do. Yeah. That would be that would be the immorality part of it. You know anything that is not of faith is a sin. Anything Yeah. Yeah. So we fall short. We fall short all the time. So you're more like akin to like in the spirit of law rather than the word of the law.
>> Well, the the word law is is very tricky in depending on the context. When I'm saying law, I'm saying moral law, meaning like that which is true about God's character and that which is true about our obligations responding to that character throughout time. So [laughter] >> any anyways, let's continue the video.
>> What about surprise hundth birthday parties? Then he dies. Well, I mean, maybe he I don't want to go there.
>> Let's say my goal is to like murder people. Um, well, I'm going to need to say that I need the freedom and well-being to succeed in doing my goal.
I need the freedom and well-being to go around to murder people. But in order to have this freedom and well-being, um, I'm going to need for you to not interfere with it. It's necess >> How is this any different than Stephan Molyneu's, um, universally preferable behavior? It sounds like the rules that would apply to me ought to apply to everyone universally or else it's immoral.
>> Yeah, it's like a even as even me as an ancap, I think the non-aggression principle is total bogus nonsense.
>> Really? Explain.
Well, first of all, because they're appealing to some sort of platonic idea, like there's this principle that is enshrouded like somewhere somewhere there's this principle that's telling people do not aggress against others.
Well, like principles can only come from like some sort of a system.
So, it can't be naturalistic because I I think uh Stephan Molyneu is an atheist.
>> Yep.
Yeah. Well, the system I think would have to come from a mind in order to give significance and purpose and meaning and intent to anything anyway.
>> Yeah. Because I mean it says right in the Bible like without the laws without the system there is no sin >> for me to achieve my goals that you don't interfere with that which means that I'm saying basically that I have a right to it because if something's necessary to your goal if you have a goal and then something necessary to achieve that then you're committed to saying that you ought have that because you have a reason to have that. So therefore everybody >> because I have a reason. Well, what if I I mean, is there such a thing as a stupid reason?
I mean, >> he's committed to saying even like the murderer is committed to saying that they have a right to the freedom and well-being to achieve their goals. So, in the the instance of the person who wants to murder people, they're going to say that they have a right to the >> Well, what if they don't claim to have that right and they're just they they're knowingly breaking that system? What if they're not saying that they're being wronged when they're being prevented from taking someone's life?
Like I think we're assuming a lot here.
>> The freedom and wellbeing.
>> Some people like to transgress known laws >> to murder people. But at this point, you take a step back from the argument >> to break a few civil laws as well as some laws of the almighty like jaywalking >> and where >> edgy boy. Yeah. Well, don't have to worry about that. you look at your starting point which is just that you're an agent and then on this basis you're saying that you have a right to the freedom and well-being to to murder people. Um but then if your agency is sufficient for you to have this right then every agent must also have this right in order for you to be logically consistent. If >> okay how can this guy conceive of the need for government?
Because if that's true, then everybody could be a cop and everybody could be a president, right? Unless there's some limiting principle by which he structures this by, well, no, only one person can be president. Well, no, not everybody can be a cop. Well, I how does that work? Because if it is afforded to people universally that whatever I get to do, you should be able to get to do and whatever would prevent you from doing what you get to do would also prevent me from doing what I get to do. Then what does he do with uh military? What does he do with the police force? What does he do with espionage? What does he do with the prison system? What does he do with I mean >> Yeah. He could only have like a completely voluntary one at that point.
He couldn't he couldn't be what we have now.
>> Yeah. He has to give privileges and stratification to his society. He can't just say that everything must be equal and therefore the equality satisfies everybody. Well, no. There has to be differences. There has to be ranking and and priority.
If agency as a property is sufficient for you to have this right, then agency as a property must be sufficient for this right. Simplicator basically. Um which means >> this is um >> Yeah, go for it.
>> Yeah. The so this is this is I think why it was so easy to kind of win me over to this when you presented it. It's because I'd made a similar argument but not about morality. Um my my case was about um just freedoms in general and that when you're when you're constructing a a system of governance, you can either begin with no freedoms and then only you're only allowed to do things the things we specifically permit or you begin with unlimited freedom and then you just restrict the things that are necessary to restrict. And between those two options, the one that begins with unlimited freedoms and then begins to restrict it is the one that is objectively more efficient to implement.
It's easier to make a list of things that we shouldn't do like, oh, can I wear this shirt? Can I wear this shirt kind of crooked? Can I wear crooked this way? Can I, you know, there's a seemingly endless stream of things you would have to grant.
>> All right, call the police. He wore that shirt crooked. I don't like it. It seems to just kind of grant them themselves like a government and not actually providing an argument as to why we ought have a government to begin with, >> right? In order to have order in a world that had could be chaotic, you need an offsetting force in order to counter that. In order to if you prize a society that you want to survive in a world where people do actual moral wrong, which we do, then first of all, you have to make the you have to make the judgment that things are moral wrong so as to justify people having guns. So as to justify people using those guns to stop other people who are doing things that we have written into law are specifically the things we have chosen ought to be stopped. All of which are reliant upon value claims.
>> It seems they want to skip over the justification and just skip to the part where they already set up a government and so now government is enshrined with legitimate authority quote unquote as to why you know they get to impose their values.
>> But hey, if I say well well he has legitimate authority I'm a human. I want legitimate authority too. This is immoral. What prevents them from from saying that? Well, uh, you see, we we kind of agreed upon government. You just want part of the vote. [laughter] >> I've been cheated. And then even if you started granting in broad categories, what you'd find is that you're basically granting a massive category for efficiency and then limiting some aspect. And if you start with the other alternative, which is you have no freedoms except for the ones we grant, you you have to start by granting yourself the freedom to grant freedoms.
Otherwise, you can't even get started on it. And so, I guess the first question >> freedoms are great >> is this notion that >> yeah, >> you know, people weren't able to drink water freely until government came along and made that a rights.
you you mentioned that you you have to be able you have to have your freedom to act and the well-being to act in order to engage whatever goal whether it's the ultimate destruction of everybody else in the in in reality or flourishing um but and then you mentioned that you need to be in order to be logically consistent you have to extend that same freedom to everybody else but isn't the first objection why what if I only want to grant me that freedom h how How do we respond to that?
>> Yeah, I think there's um I think there's like a couple of good responses there.
Um first, I'm >> Please don't say, "Well, if you do that, you're illogical." Go tell the bank robber they're illogical if you're working at the bank one day and then see how see how that works out in the real world. I mean, look, you have to con I mean, part of it if you just want to take it conventionally, you would have to convince people in such a way that corresponds to their worldview. problem is if subjectivism is true, you can never know what's going to convince somebody else. You could never make a what you would call a convincing argument. A convincing argument is relative to the motives in each individual person. So, you'd have to appeal to those, but you wouldn't even know what those are. And even if you did, how would you know that you could even formulate, let's say they have a nonsense point of view, how would you even begin to formulate a logically coherent nonsense point of view so as to be persuasive to them? You wouldn't even know the depths of their nonsensibility.
>> That's why I always start with I always start with the question, what's going to convince you? because I I had like this debate with like uh T jump like years years ago and I asked him the question like what's going to convince you and his response was to that like well I don't know you tell me it's like I can't provide your own convincing argument for you that's >> you tell me so so that that that's almost like saying the next thing you do is going to convince me because you can't be wrong. You might as well just say that okay I will send you a $5 super chat. You're going to now uh relinquish your atheism and do a a disavow video of atheism because I that there I told you.
Now do it.
Jamie Russell, how you doing?
You tell me. Unbelievable. I'm quite convinced that if if you deem that some feature about yourself is sufficient for a different feature about yourself, then in order to have that be a justified judgment, you would need to think that it's a justified judgment when applied to other people, too. You know, I'm an agent. You're an agent.
>> What if you deem yourself superior?
What if you think that you're a god?
I mean these assumptions are do they assume that everybody is reasonable?
Have they they like they spend most of their time talking about how religion has dominated the world and religion is irrational and all this kind of stuff and then they want to come to this world that they've deemed irrational and assume rationality of everybody and then think that their arguments are going to be effective or convincing. Even just because you have a coherent argument even doesn't necessarily mean that you have the means by which to change society even if you yourself are convinced by it.
>> Yeah, >> Sally's an agent, Jim is an agent. We're all agents. And that's kind of the starting place of the argument is that because I'm an agent, I have this right.
But in order for that to be a valid inference, I would need to be able to abstract that to agency itself is sufficient for that right in all agents.
Um like agency must be sufficient to have that right in general. Um if it's sufficient for me to have that right. Um I think another response to this that I think is quite good. Uh is that you know let's say you wanted to deny um other people as having that right uh but you want to say that you have that right and like these other people will [ __ ] them.
um in this circumstance if you were to one day spawn into the body of one of these other people like from their perspective the argument follows that they themselves have that right. So I mean if you were in their position you would deem >> so what I mean this is where Zilzone's Viking analogy comes in really well because the Vikings are like we have a social contract. The social contract is we as a group are going to get in our long boats and we're going to conquer and pillage.
>> But this whole thing of like well what's fair for you should be fair for me.
What's fair for me should be fair for you. Isn't that so logical? It's like you know give me your lunch money.
yourself as having that, right? Um, which means that it's going to be it's, you know, it's another like requirement of being logically consistent.
>> Imagine if I was in college and then I go up to the front of the classroom and and I'm like taking the chalk and I'm like, "Look at me. I'm the teacher now.
Fair is fair. I'm going to be the professor today. I'm going to grade the teacher's paper. Teacher, here's what I'm assigning you, buddy boy. You're going to get the same assignments all semester and I'm going to give you my syllabus and you're going to do it according to what I say. Yeah, it's halfway through, but you know, fair is fair.
>> Yeah. And notice how they he already just assumes rights like they're they're starting with a presupposed system already.
>> Yeah. I mean they're using when once you use reason in order to make a moral system why which others ought to bind themselves you are making an objective claim about rights like you said they're making objective claim about morals purpose all that kind of stuff it this is why I think my argument here is inescapable or at least so far as I've seen is inescapable you know I can't claim to be you know whatever >> um I think I I'll I'll give maybe a third response Um and and then I'll stop yapping. Um it's it's probably >> the third response is have you seen my Glock? That should be the third response >> going to be uh kind of in the same vein, but you know, in order to one of the requirements of logically of logical consistency is that you need to treat like cases alike. Fundamentally, there is nothing that you're going to be able to point to that distinct >> why why all these prescriptions without a basis of justification.
You know, the the Glock argument is a very postmodernist argument towards the liberal.
>> Uh you're you're you're exhibiting the Glock argument with your profile picture.
>> Yeah, I just noticed that too.
>> Which is what entitles you to this, right? But um you know that it isn't true of them. Uh you know, anything that you're able to point to is actually going to not be the the basis. Like let's say that you point to your strength. It's on the basis of your strength that you say that you have freedom and well-being. But if you were a lot weaker, like if one day you woke up and you were um I don't know, frail, the argument would still work. So >> I wonder if these guys are socialist as well because they have two competing fairness doctrines.
>> Okay, check this out. If they're socialists, they have two, as far as I can say, very hard to reconcile fairness doctrines. There is the fairness of you own your stuff because everybody ought to own their stuff. And then there's a fairness of this is my income or this is my net worth.
Therefore, it should be everybody else's net worth, too, right?
>> Yeah.
>> Which one wins that tiebreaker?
Uh, I'm guessing they would just chuck it up to like um a Democratic vote. And of course, uh, whoever counts who is who'sever which which whichever side is doing the vote uh, counting votes is the one who's going to win. But then you could the populace could vote your rights away. And even though you wouldn't want a populist to vote your rights away, therefore there's this asymmetry of fairness, they're going to do it anyway in the name of fairness, even if you disagree. Because if you don't understand >> Well, the thing socialism isn't about economics. It's about like social justice.
>> Yep.
Yeah. Economics is just their language, but social justice is their purpose.
>> Clearly, that can't be the criteria for claiming a right to freedom and well-being. Um, which means that to be logically consistent, you just have to extend this to everyone >> to be logically consistent.
What if I don't want to be logically consistent?
>> And by Matt Lehoney's uh standards, that's perfectly fine. especially based on today's episode of the line. If he [laughter] >> it's kind of the, you know, I I just finished a video where basically someone was arguing that, you know, if if a soldier slaughtered a bunch of children, um it wouldn't matter that they might have gone to heaven. Uh that it's not how we would evaluate the the solders's actions. And then they went on to make the case that, you know, God brought you into this world, God can take you out.
And the very notion that, you know, you could have any sort of meaningful discussion about a legal system, about a moral system, about anything that you could count as a system where this system applies to everybody except for this person. And when when you're you're >> you literally told me today that you don't have an ought to believe what is true and reject what's false.
You told me this today and now you're making these determinations. How?
>> You know, he might he's he's getting old. He probably has like oldtimers now.
>> He probably has oldtimers now. Is that what you're saying?
>> Yeah.
>> Call it old nightm.
And when when you're you're pointing to, oh, I'm the agent that wants to destroy everybody, and so I agree that we need to grant this agent the freedom and well-being to do so. But, you know, screw the rest of you. Um, I don't even know.
>> Not that they ever cared about being consistent.
>> If not for double standards, I'd have no standards at all. To >> some extent, yes, you you have to entertain objections like that. Um, but it's one of those like if you and I are playing chess and and you just say, "Oh, the the rules of chess don't apply to both of us." Uh, you get to just knock pieces off the board, then it's it's perfectly fine. We're no longer playing the same game. And so, yeah, if you're talking >> what? So, what? But you can opt out of chess. You can't opt out of reality.
Well, I think he's admitting it's perfectly fine to be like, you know, what whatever you want to be. You can be against democracy. You can be against whatever system they're proposing. He's basically admitting that whatever system they set up has no legitimacy. And so, you can just like topple topple topple it over if you want.
>> Yeah, why not? And and then all you can do is say, "Well, we're not playing the same game." Which is just a descriptive declaration of the state of affairs.
>> Yeah.
>> That doesn't actually condemn or justify anybody.
[snorts] >> Yeah. And they and then right after that, they just cry like, "Oh, you done something immoral. How dare you?"
>> Yeah.
>> About what agents can do. Um then it has to be this this really needs to be another application of R's veil of ignorance and that is design the system that you're wanting to participate in not knowing who you're going to be that is you know a critical foundation to to fairness and so even the person who would like to have only those rules apply to them only that freedom and well-being apply to them if they have to design that system not knowing who they're going to be they have to apply it to all agents It's just a guarantee they have it. So this is very much a >> if you want to be able to act the minimum objective moral categorical imperative is a foundation built on well-being and the freedom to act. Is there anything else that you think >> if if you want the ability to act, he's he's literally saying you cannot drink water without government first providing you a right to drink water. It's ridiculous.
>> Okay, let's say the government must provide you the right to drink water.
when they're charting up what this order of government is going to look like, are they using reason to determine that you should have the right or that you do have the right? Because if in both cases, if you do have the right, then that puts the should on them for putting it in their charter. But if you should have the right, that's still dependent upon a value claim and a moral claim for how they ought to make government in lie of the right that exists before the government exists.
Did you catch that, Darth? Are are you dead? Did you die just now?
Darth, [sighs] I think the machine has failed you, Darth.
think uh or that any of us could could begin arguing for that are either direct extensions of those and therefore building on to a larger um objective foundation or or is that kind of as far as we can get at the category level because once I have the freedom to act and the well-being to do so my preferred goal might be the extermination of everybody in the universe and Your preferred goal might be the flourishing of everybody in the universe. And I don't know how we can describe either of those as as anything more than a preference. Their preferences I agree with and share. Um but I don't know how we get beyond that.
>> Yeah. Um there's I think there's like a couple of things to say about that. Um >> now I can't hear you, Darth. I don't know why, but uh just kind of happened that way.
So I guess like maybe the the starting place um is I I think that there's I think this framework lays out a good framework in terms of your obligations to other people. These are strictly what you must do with respect to other people. But one thing that I've been reading up on and kind of like the next ethical project that I'm working on in terms of expanding my um objective objective ethical system is I I think the virtue ethicists are on to something. I think that the way to account for your obligations to yourself are to evaluate um some sort like whether or not there is some sort of um flourishing human life. whether or not in order to maximize your capacities as an individual, there's going to be specific obligations that you have towards yourself.
>> So, for example, one of the >> it just seems like a carousel running in a circle.
>> The virtues is courage. Um I I understand courage at this point to be something that's very like game theoretic. Um, there are going to be specific things that you have to value just in virtue of being a person that values anything at all, in virtue of being a person that values things like freedom and well-being in all agents.
Um, and in order to to take the actions that are rational, there's like a certain level of of risk versus reward in all of your actions. And these need to be in line with the things that you value. Um, and that just kind of is what courage is. Um, it's it's that plus feeling the emotions that cor.
>> All right, Darth, you want to try talking?
>> Oh, Darth, what have you done?
Not much of a panel, gotta say, Darth, gotta say. But uh I think uh at this point I've been on the air for like six and a half hours. Is that about true?
Yeah, roughly about six and a half hours. So I may end up just calling it a day after all. But uh yeah, it's been a good one. Uh we've had a lot of I did not count on encountering Matt Dillah Hunty going on a show ex experiencing the mute button.
It's interesting. I guess that would make Dillah Hunty the uh orthob bro of atheism in terms of you know being compared to Jay Dyer with that.
Darth, are you there?
Darthothy, can you hear me?
Where are you? Holla at me, boy.
I can't hear you. And I don't know. Is anybody in the chat saying they can hear him?
Is there anybody in the chat at all?
Sorry, Darth, but uh I would say any last words, but uh looks like you've already given your last words, so we're going to uh end that as is.
So Oh, shoot.
There we go. All right, guys. We will uh we'll bid you a do as is. Have a great Sunday night. Have a great rest of your week. Start strong. End strong. And uh we will uh see you next time. [music] >> [music]
Related Videos
0:33
Philosophy
Open Tab is a new interview series hosted by Substack co-founder Hamish McKenzie
Hypeflicksss
1K views•2026-05-21
27:53
Philosophy
Street Epistemology: Maritza (1) | Student Demands the Truth (Valuation)
magnabosco210
124K views•2019-06-27
1:18
Philosophy
Nel Noddings | Feminist philosophy and education | Whiteboard Video
studioninety9110
3K views•2019-10-13
18:20
Philosophy
LEGAL METHOD CLASS: Law, Order, Justice & Freedom | Understanding the Concept of Law in Society
LAW-MADE-SIMPLE.c
371 views•2025-11-22
1:26:44
Philosophy
Does evolution DEBUNK morality?
MajestyofReason
7K views•2025-03-06
47:07
Philosophy
How the Gospels Pass the Historical Test | Tim and Lydia McGrew
TheAaronRennShow
713 views•2025-12-02
1:03:26
Philosophy
Pluriversal Design SIG Book Club 13: bell hooks' Theory as Liberatory Practice
pluriversaldesignsig2851
777 views•2022-05-24
1:37:10
Philosophy
NICK LAND MEETS THEORY UNDERGROUND (w/ Michael Downs and David McKerracher)
PhilosophyPortal
9K views•2023-10-23
Trending
9:05
Artificial Intelligence
2.4 BILLION Records Got Leaked...
DeepHumor
15K views•2026-07-22
13:25
Business
Playstation NO DISC/NO BUY Fight Is Over...
DavidJaffeGames
4K views•2026-07-23
19:32
Business
Should I buy a Sawmill?
essentialcraftsman
29K views•2026-07-22
16:52
Anthropology
Americans Confused in Australia for 17 Minutes Straight
IWrocker
17K views•2026-07-23